The Nizkor Project: Remembering the Holocaust (Shoah)

Shofar FTP Archive File: people/g/giwer.matt/1995/giwer_debate_9510


««■■ R_9510 ■■»»
+++■■■■■ r_951002 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1078)
To:      Lester Garrett                         25 Sep 95 13:25:10
Subject: 1st-Religion                           

LG>      LG>  Yes, as a matter of fact there is.  That's why the founders  
LG>      LG>  intended there be a wall of separation between church and 
LG>      LG>  state.

LG>  MG> Which paper?

LG> ???  I haven't the foggiest idea what you have in mind.

     Federalist Paper.  This "wall of separation" comes from a 
letter by Jefferson who was out of the country when the 
Constitution was being drafted.  

     Regardless of the desirability of this separation, I know of 
no source of a clear intention of same.  I am interested in 
knowing of a source.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Pity the BATF.  They never did get to search Mt. Carmel.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1079)
To:      Lester Garrett                         25 Sep 95 13:32:10
Subject: Disgusting Journalism                  

LG>   MG>  .  .  .Now comes the government in every federal case.  It 
LG>   MG>  uses the FBI Forensic Laboratory.  That laboratory has been 
LG>   MG>  accused by one of it senior members of falsifying test 
LG>   MG>  results.  Back to your suspected fatal illness, would you 
LG>   MG>  use that laboratory if they were accused of slanting the 
LG>   MG>  test results in favor of it causing you to die?  Do you 
LG>   MG>  have a death wish?   .  .  .

LG>  Matt, this is the kind of disgustingly sickening 
LG>  suggestively misleading journalism which belongs in a trash 
LG>  can.  Rather than accurately reflect the charges leveled by 
LG>  Dr.  Whitehurst (you do realize that they are still only 
LG>  charges, Matt, do you not?), you chose instead to 
LG>  misrepresent them in order to suit your purpose.  Frankly, 
LG>  I'm both disappointed and disgusted.  Dr.  Whitehurst has 
LG>  been careful to state that the problem is not, as you 
LG>  broadly and misleadingly suggest above, with the laboratory 
LG>  per se, but rather and only with a very few individuals who 
LG>  work there.  Dr.  Henry Lee, who is generally acknowledged 
LG>  as one of the country's leading forensic experts, has 
LG>  characterized the FBI lab as among the best there is and 
LG>  has nothing but high praise for _most_ of the people who 
LG>  work there.

     Pardon me but did I miss an investigation of these charges?  
Did I in some manner miss a listing of all the cases in which 
these few individuals developed evidence?  Did I miss all of 
those analysis being re-done?  Did I hear correctly that these 
individuals have been promoted?

     Am I the only one who smells another coverup here?  And what 
is the only approach we have found that can even begin to 
pressure the government into investigating itself?  It is what 
finally got at least a hearing on Ruby Ridge and finally got a 
hearing under oath on Waco.  

LG>  No, you do not say it's the entire entire lab that's bad.  
LG>  Worse.  You suggest it and then move on.  And you treat as 
LG>  yet unsubstiantiated charges as though they were proven 
LG>  facts.  If you keep up in this vein I suggest you take a 
LG>  remedial course in the ethics of good journalism.

     Since when is an opinion piece journalism?

     If these allegations are true, and the FBI does not appear 
interested in finding out, then there are likely people in prison 
right now based upon falsified evidence.  Until these people are 
given an opportunity to apply their skills to the fast food 
industry, until the evidence is re-examined, and until all of the 
cases are re-opened, there is no reason to deal with this 
lightly.

     Now to the central question, would you use that laboratory 
for your medical tests?  Remember, you have no idea who will 
perform the tests, no idea which tests have been falsified in 
other cases, but you know the same people are their with 
promotions.  Would you?  It is only your life.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                      EYE 4 NEWT
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1080)
To:      Bob Klahn                              25 Sep 95 13:51:10
Subject: IR OPINION FROM JAN 8                  

BK> BK>> BK>>always been, why was this fire detecting equipment 
BK> BK>> BK>>in use in daylight unless a fire was expected?  And 
BK> BK>> BK>>if a fire was expected, why?
BK> ...
BK> BK>>  Of course you won't get an answer if you don't.

BK>  MG>       I was under the impression rhetorical was the proper 
BK>  MG>  description of the question.
BK>  MG> 
BK>  MG>       If you think there is an alternate answer, please feel 
BK>  MG>  free to post it.

BK>   Because the Waco Wackos *WERE* wacko.  And the govt 
BK>   officials knew it.

     You mean to say the government was expecting mass suicide by 
fire and went ahead anyway?

BK> BK>>  MG>        Now we are back to where we started.  Said people had 
BK> BK>>  MG>   to be outside if moving.  Visible light is greater 
BK> BK>>  MG>   superior to IR in every respect for that purpose.  And 
BK> BK>>  MG>   what "tracking"?  Seeing only as on a TV screen.

BK> BK>>  They are allowed to standstill once in a while.

BK>  MG>      What does that have to do with anything?

BK>   You said they had to be outside if moving.  That implies 
BK>   they can be inside if they standstill.

     I still do not see your point.

     1)   Watching not tracking is the proper term to use on a 
CRT display.  There is NO WAY to "track" in any automated sense.  
It is all the Mk 1 eyeball. 

     2)   The watching was done with a field of view of around 
100 feet (viewing some raw pictures it is more like 200 feet.)

     3)   It is not practical to see anyone in such a field of 
view in any type of light.

BK>  MG>       WHAT people were outside in need of being tracked when 
BK>  MG>  there were government personnel all over the grounds all 
BK>  MG>  morning?  Any

BK>   They should have called in some of the experts from Ruby 
BK>   Ridge.  Then they could have shot all these Davidians 
BK>   wandering around outside.  Maybe the seige would have ended 
BK>   sooner.  The only reason I can think of for not doing such 
BK>   a sensible thing is, they didn't want to kill people.  That 
BK>   couldn't be true, could it?

     Read it again.  The government types were outside all 
morning, the Davidians were inside.  And the same people were at 
Waco but they apparently did not have shoot to kill orders.

BK>  MG>  "tracking" was being done by the Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball looking 
BK>  MG>  at a CRT.

BK>   All these people wandering around outside, in daylight, 
BK>   and they were watching them on CRT's? No binoculars? No 
BK>   direct observation?

     Government people outside.  So why was their a need for 
     a plane overhead?

BK> BK>>  MG>      And from that height, angle and field of view a person would
BK> BK>>  MG> be about the size of an "i" if you are reading this at 50 lines,
BK> BK>>  MG> half that at 25 lines.  And that "person" is simply a different
BK> BK>>  MG> shade of grey.

BK> BK>>   What height, angle and field of view?

BK>  MG>       We have the size of the building and the view that was 
BK>  MG>  shown at the hearing.  Given the time it took to orbit and 
BK>  MG>  the stall speed of fixed wing aircraft then giving it the 
BK>  MG>  best of all

BK>  No helicopters? No telescopic lenses?

     They said, under oath, it was fixed wing.  Given the 
     necessary altitude it certainly did have a telephoto lens.

BK>  MG> assumptions, the plane was at least 5000 feet up.  The angle is

BK>  A mile up? Why not a U2 or SR-71 while you're at it?

     You saw the tape didn't you?

BK>  ...
BK> BK>>  No thanks, you just keep jumping on those republicans.

BK>  MG>      Vote Libertarian!

BK>   The day there is a Libertarian candidate who has a platfor 
BK>   that sounds somewhat better than, "Take care of number 
BK>   1."

Who is number one in your life?  Your family or the people on the 
other side of town?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Critics of The Bell Curve cheated on the test.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1081)
To:      Lester Garrett                         25 Sep 95 14:32:10
Subject: MILITIA                                

LG> In a message to Bob Klahn, dated Sep 20 1995, Matt Giwer wrote:

LG>               BK> The constitution assigns authority for organizing
LG>               BK> the militia to the federal govt.

LG>           MG> . . .Would you care to cite the provision you you can
LG>           MG> find in the Constitution?

LG>       BK> . . .Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power . . .

LG>       BK> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining,
LG>       BK> the militia. . .

LG>       BK> You must be feeling mellow, giving me such an easy one.

LG>   MG> And here is the organization.

LG>   MG>          "311.  Militia:  Composition and classes  . . .

LG>   MG> What fault and upon what basis do you find Congress has not
LG>   MG> organized the militia?  Upon what basis do you find a
LG>   MG> problem with the unorganized militia as provided for by
LG>   MG> Congress?

LG>  Are you responding at cross-purposes?  I don't see the 
LG>  relevance of your reply to Bob's initial statement (above).  
LG>  As quoted by you he stated, correctly, that that the 
LG>  Constitution gives Congress the power to organize the 
LG>  militia.  What relevance has your citation of 10 USC 311 on 
LG>  his claim?  Or did you, perhaps, intended to respond to 
LG>  another portion of his message which you did not quote and 
LG>  which, therefore, makes your reply seem to have nothing to 
LG>  do with what you have in fact quoted?

     Through long experience I have found that if I give the 
second response first it appears to vanish into a black hole 
every time I use it even on the same person.  This is simply a 
variation on the approach to see if it will stick this way.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Paralegal?  What is your typing speed?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1082)
To:      Bob Klahn                              25 Sep 95 14:37:10
Subject: USCONSTITUTION                         

BK> ...
BK> BK>>  MG>       You work and you are on Medicare?  How strange.  How
BK> BK>>  MG>  do you manage it?  And how did they manage it without
BK> BK>>  MG>  changing the law?

BK> BK>>   Why would that be strange? Nothing to prevent it.  The fact
BK> BK>>   that I am not over 62 and not handicapped would make it
BK> BK>>   strange, but not the fact that I work.  My grandmother
BK> BK>>   worked part time till she was 72.  Got medicare also.  Then,
BK> BK>>   when she was 72 she went back to working full time.

BK>  MG>      Interesting.  But then how did they do it without changing
BK>  MG> the law?

BK>   What law did they have to change? She was old enough, 
BK>   retired, earned income low enough.

     The original statement, now scrolled off of the edit screen, 
related to losing coverage and having to pay more in the present.  
I was inquiring as to how that was possible as no law had been 
changed.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If Reno were a real general, she would get a section eight.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1090)
To:      Linda Terrell                          26 Sep 95 01:16:10
Subject: Bible                                  

LT> MG> LT>  the Son of God.  Trying to follow an act like that could
LT> MG> LT>  leave you pretty limp.  .  .
LT> MG> LT>      At least, that how it all comes across to me.

LT> MG>       You have had a strange sex life.  Was there ever a 
LT> MG>  time you did not know you had had sex such that an angel 
LT> MG>  had to tell you about it?  Any man can do better than that 
LT> MG>  just by having bad breath.

LT>         I said that is how it comes across when I READ the 
LT>  myth.  Mary was made unconscious for the "procedure"  She 
LT>  had to be told.  An angel appeared to Joseph to tell him 
LT>  that he wasn't the "daddy" God was.  And they both 
LT>  swallowed the story!  And apparently, so did most of the 
LT>  world they knew at that time.

     Sounds like god is a Grey.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If Aristole was straight,why'd he write Posterior Analytics?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1091)
To:      C. T. Day                              26 Sep 95 01:21:10
Subject: Religion                               

CD> Which paper?

CD>       Well, it certainly wasn't the U.S.  Constitution! 
CD>  Actually, that "separation of Church & State" bit came from 
CD>  a black-robed egomaniac who thought he could interpret what 
CD>  the Founding Fathers had originally said, which was that 
CD>  the government was NOT to interfere with the people's right 
CD>  to worship whom they will, and not to favor any one church 
CD>  as a "state" religion.  Otherwise, why do the House & 
CD>  Senate, each, start off the business day with a religious  
CD>  invocation.  The First Amendment says NOTHING about any 
CD>  so-called "Separation of Church & State"; I'll trust the 
CD>  Founding Fathers' phraseology over that of some dismal 
CD>  political activist with a black robe, ANY TIME!!!

     It is a term that comes from a letter by Jefferson to some 
one and of course Jefferson was ambassador to France at the time 
the constitution was written and I believe remained so until 
after the BOR had been adopted.  

     As it is not in the constitution then the only other 
approved source is the Federalist Papers (and if unapproved, then 
SC does not have the power to find laws unconstitutional.)  For 
better or worse, the source of this interpretation or lack of 
same certainly needs be identified.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One BATF, one militia.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1123)
To:      Lester Garrett                         26 Sep 95 15:21:10
Subject: LAW CONF                               

KP>  KP>         You're aware that Hirschfeld was disbarred?

KP>  MG>  He was in trouble at one point but was he disbarred?  I 
KP>  MG>  didn't find any evidence of that and lots of people were 
KP>  MG>  after him at the time he was in trouble and was obviously 
KP>  MG>  practicing.

KP>          You mean when he RAN from the law and hid in the 
KP>  hills in Mexico? They caught him.  He lost an appeal and the 
KP>  Arizona Bar kicked him out! Gave him 30 days to close his 
KP>  practice under the STRICT supervision of a REAL Arizona 
KP>  lawyer.  Then fined him and ordered restitution to clients 
KP>  that is somewhere between $60,000 and $90,000.  You weren't 
KP>  in Arizona Matt.

     I must have been asleep that week.  Thanks.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * If cabbages are legal, are 1000 cabbages illegal?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1124)
To:      Herne                                  26 Sep 95 15:25:10
Subject: Bible                                  

HH>  MG>       Zeus appeared as a bull (swan?) (or both?) to do so.  
HH>  MG>  It is SOP for deities.

HH> I guess being God, you don't have to abide by your own rules.

     It's good to be the god.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Let God sort out the BATF.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1131)
To:      Geraden                                27 Sep 95 01:42:10
Subject: 1/4 Liar Clinton                       

GG> >  thought I would dust off some quotes the Great Liar uttered 
GG> >  the first time he ran.  Here then, is proof that the garbage 
GG> >  that spews out of Bill Clinton's open sewer of a mouth is 
GG> >  just that: garbage.  Read it and weep, Clinton apologists:

GG>  Have you *EVER* known of a president in this century who 
GG>  hasn't "spewed a lot of lies" to get in office? I haven't, 
GG>  especially the Republican ones...

     Another person who admits Clinton is no better than any 
Republican.  The ranks are swelling.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The power to tax is the power to destroy but regulation's OK
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1132)
To:      Anna Dobbyn                            27 Sep 95 01:46:10
Subject: 1ST "LADY" AIN'T SHIT                  

AD> Anna, who thinks they're both a couple of turds...

     You vote for one turd you get them both.

     Paraphrased from HRC in April 1992 the month before she 
turned out 45 perfect full size brioche in a professional oven to 
demonstrate her homemaking skills.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Militias and Clinton.  Even paranoids have enemies.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1133)
To:      Tim Boothby                            27 Sep 95 01:49:10
Subject: 1ST "LADY" AIN'T SHIT                  

TB>  >          Did you read anything in history about Mrs.  
TB>  >    Hoover's disallowing ANYONE to see her husband during his 
TB>  >    illness, and (supposedly) relaying his orders??  She went 
TB>  >    so far as to fire a cabinet member, because of his 
TB>  >    objections to her machinations.

TB>  Wilson's wife ran things while her husband recovered from a 
TB>  mild stroke.  I'm seeing a trend here.  :)

     Billie has had a stroke.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Chipmunks roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at th
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1134)
To:      Lester Garrett                         27 Sep 95 02:09:10
Subject: A Powell Presidency                    

LG>   AH>  Yea or Nay on Powell for President?  If Yea, as Independent 
LG>   AH>  or Republican?

LG>  The more I hear about his positions and the more I think 
LG>  about it, the more I like the idea of Powell as the 
LG>  Republican candidate.  Based on his interviews and comments 
LG>  to date,

     I don't know what you are hearing.  I keep hearing a 
straddle on every issue just like Clinton.  Lets face it.  
Whatever his positions are, you are going to have to buy his book 
to get an idea, and at the moment he has one objective, to sell 
books.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, The Man From Hot Springs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1135)
To:      Bob Klahn                              27 Sep 95 02:43:10
Subject: CADET HAZING                           

BK>  BK>>   Pretty much the same thing.  The military manages to train 
BK>  BK>>  women without  scalping them.

BK>  JM>  If it works for women, why does the military still shave 
BK>  JM>  the guys heads? Are they not discriminating against males 
BK>  JM>  by doing something that doesn't have to be done for 
BK>  JM>  training?

BK>  BK>>  Equal is not identical.

BK>  JM> Then just what does EQUAL mean?

BK>   If you and I are both E-5s, we hold equal rank, but I may 
BK>   be AF and you may be Army.  Not identical.  We get the same 
BK>   pay, though.

     Equal work or equal rate?  Equal accomplishment to get there 
or unequal accomplishment to get there?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "I take full responsibility" means "Don't blame me." J. Reno
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1137)
To:      Bob Klahn                              27 Sep 95 03:07:10
Subject: FAULKNER               01              

BK> BK>>   Which is reasonable when women pay the bills also.  It is
BK> BK>>   not a private club.

BK>  MG>      Actually they do not, taxpayers in the state do and they
BK>  MG> maintain three women only colleges.

BK>   Do any of those colleges offer a comparable program? If 
BK>   they had offered such a program they might well have won 
BK>   their case.  As it is they are setting up what appears to 
BK>   be a watered down version.  They might win it on that, but 
BK>   I suspect before too much longer the barriers will fall.

     The claims of comparable are of interest of course but then 
the only issue here was not getting a comparable course ready 
before the fall session opened.  However it is not clear what 
comparable means in this case.

BK>  MG>       The reasonableness is also in question.  I am not 
BK>  MG>  aware of any pretention of the court to have 180 years 
BK>  MG>  experience in setting standards for military colleges.

BK>   Nor do the courts have any measureable experience in 
BK>   technology, medicine, surveying, etc.  Yet they settle 
BK>   patent, malpractice or land disputes all the time.  That is 
BK>   where expert witnesses come in.

     Would you care to tell me which other cases exist where the 
courts have set such standards?

BK>   The simple solution, as I see it, would be to have a 
BK>   review by unbiased experts to determine if a woman can 
BK>   complete the course of study, and if there is a purpose in 
BK>   haveing women take that course of study.  The submit that 
BK>   report to the court, which will decide the matters of law.  
BK>   Absent such a review all we have is the admission by the 
BK>   Citadel's administration that she did qualify.  (as cited 
BK>   in the court's decision.)

     The court has already decided women can not complete the 
course requirements in ordering 40% physical standards.  The 
opinion of the court in that matter is not in question.

BK> BK>>    The *ONLY* grounds on which they can set standards is the 
BK> BK>>    requirements of the job they are training students for.  
BK> BK>>    As long as the job, (military officer) is open to women 
BK> BK>>    they have no grounds to refuse women.

BK>  MG>       They are training for combat army officer which is not 
BK>  MG>  open to women.  They are training people to be the KIND of 
BK>  MG>  officer that would show up in Vietnam with their own sawed 
BK>  MG>  off and .357 ready to head into combat.  Nothing short of 
BK>  MG>  that.

BK>   Any officer like that would be likely to be shipped back 
BK>   to the states for assignment to a padded room.  Or should 
BK>   be.

     Ollie North, Annapolis grad, for example?  Sounds like you 
don't know your military very well.

BK>  MG>       Their tradition is to produce officers that formed up 
BK>  MG>  and trained volunteers to march to the front and push back 
BK>  MG>  the Yankees or to go direct from graduation to front line 
BK>  MG>  duty assignments as in the World Wars.  They simply did not 
BK>  MG>  train anything else -- until the court ordered it.

BK>   Like I said, if the military will restrict Citadel grads 
BK>   to combat units only, I will accept that they have to be 
BK>   all men.  Don't think I'd want to serve under one, in any 
BK>   assignment, though.

     On the other side of the picture the military prohibits 
women from any kind of combat duty.  Because of that, the 
training is wasted on women.  Thus resources must be wasted on 
people who can never use them.     

BK>  MG>       I draw your attention to something parallel.  The US 
BK>  MG>  has one unit that does this also.  They are called the 
BK>  MG>  Marines.  They are not looking for a few good persons.

BK>   Oh yes they are.  There are plenty of female marines.  And 
BK>   they also have plenty of positions that do not take their 
BK>   people into combat.  I work with one.

     They were called BAMs in the old days.  They still should 
be.  

BK>   Also, we have quite a few ex-marines around the company, 
BK>   and a common consensus they are all somewhat half a bubble 
BK>   off level.

     Not including the woman of course.

BK>  MG>       The issue here is different in any event.  Prior 
BK>  MG>  decisions permitting women into men's schools was that 
BK>  MG>  education is gender neutral.  That was extended in this 
BK>  MG>  case to mean all forms of education.  The general statement 
BK>  MG>  is that they train leaders and the means of that training 
BK>  MG>  is military.

BK>  Which is reasonable, see my previous comments.

     Women can not be combat leaders by policy according to 
congress or ability according to the court.

BK>  MG>       The court chose to take it upon itself to claim that 
BK>  MG>  the school could teach that leadership under the conditions 
BK>  MG>  of the court rather than under the conditions of the 
BK>  MG>  experts.  Whether or not that is possible is open to 
BK>  MG>  speculation.

BK>  When you pick your own experts, you reach any conclusions you want.

     I have yet to hear anyone claim a woman can be trained to 
lead men when substandard performance and ability is mandated by 
**
Continued in the next message...
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1138)
To:      Delores E Rowe                         27 Sep 95 04:07:10
Subject: Usconstitution                         

DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>Can't afford to.  Good dictionaries are expensive, and
DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>the conservatives have been so busy reducing the incomes
DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>of us working people, and our medical coverage, that I
DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>find myself paying increasing portions of increasing
DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>medical bills, with a decreasing real income.

DR> MG>     Lets review the bidding.  The allegation is in th first
DR> MG>paragraph.

DR>  If you are referring to the first paragraph at the top of 
DR>  this posting, Bob indicated that dictionaries were not in 
DR>  his budget because:
DR> 
DR>  A) Increased taxes
DR> 
DR>  B) Increased deductibles on his medical insurance and 
DR>  reduced coverages
DR> 
DR>  Result: increased expenses, less income.  IMO, that did not 
DR>  indicate in any way, that he was on Medicare.  However, in 
DR>  response to your erroneous assumption, he went on to 
DR>  explain how it IS entirely possible to work AND be on 
DR>  Medicare.
DR> 
DR>  You then indicated that some law would have to have been 
DR>  changed in order for this to occur.
DR> 
DR>  In my posting, I pointed out where this was not so and 
DR>  provided a source as evidence of the fact.

     The allegation is that "conservatives HAVE BEEN so busy".  I 
pointed out that as no law has changed this can not be a true 
statement.

DR> MG>      Would you care to explain how the allegations in the 
DR> MG> first paragraph can have occurred prior to any laws having 
DR> MG> changed?

DR>  What law are you talking about, Matt?  There apparently is 
DR>  not a law that says you can't work and receive Medicare, so 
DR>  what law are you talking about?

     I presume it is now clarified.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Don't burn our liberties to protect our symbols.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_951004 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1130)
To:      Anna Dobbyn                            30 Sep 95 15:28:10
Subject: 1ST "LADY" AIN'T SHIT                  

AD> MG>      Paraphrased from HRC in April 1992 the month before she 
AD> MG> turned out 45 perfect full size brioche in a professional 
AD> MG> oven to demonstrate her homemaking skills.

AD>  I'll outbake, and out-do her in anything else too.  She's 
AD>  not about anything I can't handle.

     No doubt but would the media seriously report that you had 
down what she claimed at the photo-op?  No skepticism whatsoever.  
Not even a hint of a snicker.  The who story including front page 
picture in the Wash Post reported deadpan.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Afraid of the UN?  So was your old man.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1132)
To:      Michael Pilon                          30 Sep 95 22:43:10
Subject: CP. NEW                                

MP>  MG>  That means he is being ordered to serve in a army other 
MP>  MG>  than the one to which he took an oath.  Most of the issue 
MP>  MG>  could be defused were there no requirement to wear the UN 
MP>  MG>  insignia.

MP>  I am sure if you looked somewhere in Military regs you 
MP>  would find that he is expected to serve where the US 
MP>  military assigns him.  

     Where and under who are different issues.  How about a 
paranoid example?  While serving with the UN he receives orders 
from the Pakistani (the EEO commander of the week) to start 
shooting the Canadian contingent?  What is he to do? 

     Follow orders of course, he is under orders from that 
commander.  What is the penalty for disobedience of a direct 
order?  Now who does Canada complain to?  Certainly not the US.  
Either the UN or Pakistan, most likely the former.  

     Did you just say it can't happen?  Why not?  What could 
prevent it?  

MP>  WOuld you negate Korea.  

     Orders in Korea came directly from the US President.  

MP>   Nato , what about exchanges.  

     Even in exchanges between our Army and our Air Force, there 
is no change of uniform or additional device indicating 
membership in the other service.

MP>   I served with US military on assignment to Canada and they 
MP>   often wore local insignias.  For example the 415 Sqn 
MP>   shoulder patch was worn by Americans.  Two Canadians died 
MP>   this weekend on a US AWACS air craft in Alaska, no doube 
MP>   they wore sqn patches.

     A unit designation is not a national designation.  May I 
suggest they (you) did not wear anything saying "US Army" or its 
equivalent?  

MP>      Spc New is a total asshole....  period.

     You don't know a damned thing about him save what he has 
stated are his intentions to his superiors.  Are you going to be 
in Atlanta next year for the conclusion jumping event?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Critics of The Bell Curve cheated on the test.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1141)
To:      James Littlehammer                     30 Sep 95 05:51:10
Subject: 1st-religion                           

JL>  LG> ???  I haven't the foggiest idea what you have in mind.

JL>  MG> Federalist Paper.  This "wall of separation" comes from a
JL>  MG> letter by Jefferson who was out of the country when the
JL>  MG> Constitution was being drafted.

JL>   True that's where the actual phrase cane from, but there 
JL>   is no doubt that he nonetheless exerted a lot of 
JL>   influence.  As for the Federalist Papers, I'll do a search 
JL>   in the next few days and see what I can find.  

     I'll be waiting.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Pity the BATF.  They never did get to search Mt. Carmel.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1142)
To:      Michael Pilon                          30 Sep 95 05:52:10
Subject: CHRISTIAN COALITION                    

MP>  MP>  Is medicare a work of the devil.  Didn't Christ say
MP>  MP>  something about helping the poor ? Gad no wonder I could
MP>  MP>  never be born again, I have all these silly ideas about
MP>  MP>  good will to fellow man...

MP>  MG> Where is it written there is merit in forcing others to be
MP>  MG> charitable?

MP> If it ain't in the US constitution it ain't anywhere right Matt ?

     I will admit any acknowledged source on the subject of 
charity that you wish to discuss.  Which one holds that forcing 
others to give is meritorious towards the virtue of charity?

     So far as I am aware all that address the matter are 
religious in nature, that is authoritative beyond question of 
being mere human opinion.

     If you would like to cite any such work endorsing force as 
meritorious I will be happy to hear of it.  For the moment we can 
even skip the validity of the religion.  

     After you take ZERO screens for your examples, perhaps you 
can, in your own words, tell me why force equals charity.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *             Keystone Kops + Gestapo = BATF
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1143)
To:      Michael Pilon                          30 Sep 95 05:57:10
Subject: CP. NEW                                

MP>  MP>      As a person who once served in a UN peace keeping force
MP>  MP>  ( Cyprus 1971-1972) I would say Spc New is a total
MP>  MP>  asshole.....

MP>  MG> You need to learn what our constitution is like.

MP>      Tell that to Korean vets or even NATO forces.  Hmmm what 
MP>  that about learning about your constitution ?

     US troops were not under other than US command in either 
case.  Perhaps you need to learn what that means?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *                    Exon -- X OFF
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1144)
To:      Michael Pilon                          30 Sep 95 22:59:10
Subject: MICHAEL NEW - A REAL                   

MP>  MG>  Asking you what device on your uniform identified you as a 
MP>  MG>  member of the UN military?  None? Then what is it you think 
MP>  MG>  is a parallel?

MP>  Hmm the man is in NATO with a distinctive ID Patch and he 
MP>  is going Ape shit about a UN patch.  Yep sure sign of a 
MP>  total ass hole.

     You are obviously unaware that the US deal with NATO is that 
US troops are never under the command of any but US officers in a 
direct like to the president.  There was a similar problem in WW 
II which contributed to Eisenhower being the SAC.  If Monty had 
had the title Eisenhower would have been forced to go his own 
way as he reported only to the president.

MP>  MG>  You should realize our constitution is quite different from 
MP>  MG>  what you folks do not have.

MP>  Ours was patriated in 1982, just the odd hicupp in getting 
MP>  it ratified ;).  Such as a referendum on Quebec Independence 
MP>  Oct 30.

     And since you were there, what is the wording of the oath 
you took when joining the army?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Chipmunks roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at th
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1146)
To:      Michael Pilon                          30 Sep 95 22:35:10
Subject: CP. NEW                                

MP>  MG>  Nor can they be required to obey illegal orders which is 
MP>  MG>  the point of this matter.  How can someone be ordered to 
MP>  MG>  wear the uniform of an army of which he is not a member?

MP>  When will you evern get it .....  Just like checkered paint, 
MP>  a yard of shore line, a sky hook...there is no such thing 
MP>  as a UN Army, let alone a UN uniform.  In World War Two the 
MP>  Allies did not dress alike, in Korea a UN action the troops 
MP>  did not dress alike....etc ad nauseum.  In a UN Force you 
MP>  wear a Blue Beret and a UN arm band.  Beleive me I've worn 
MP>  them.  But we are under Canadian command and the other 
MP>  troops were under their national command.  There is an over 
MP>  all mission purpose and a force commander.  But then so is 
MP>  there in NATO.  I know this is a major disappointment to the 
MP>  UN / New World Order ? Someone is under my bed brand of 
MP>  ignorant paranoia but it is sadly the truth.

     You appear unable to separate the issues here.  There is no 
stated or suspected connection with any new world order talk.  

     This is an issue of whether or not an American (call it a 
quirk of our system) has any obligation to participate in 
activity whose orders do not originate with the president.  As to 
the Canadian system and what you may have worn is clearly 
something from another legal system.  

MP>      But then Tom Valentine and assorted nuts ( more 
MP>  peanuts) make fortunes playing on this sort of thing.

     Never heard of him.

     But if it makes you happen to invent a 

Wearing UN devices. 

then continue to do so.  I have yet to hear of it.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * It is better to be a hammer than a nail.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1149)
To:      Lester Garrett                         30 Sep 95 23:06:10
Subject: Robert Hirschfeld                      

LG> In a message to All, dated Sep 21 1995, Ken Pangborn wrote:

LG>   KP>  Has anyone updated the saga of Bobby Hirschfeld's fate? 
LG>   KP>  Here is the latest I have been told.  Bobby has been 
LG>   KP>  disbarred.  He was ordered by the Arizona Supremes to close 
LG>   KP>  his practice in 30 days UNDER SUPERVISION OF A LAWYER.  
LG>   KP>  (This was a couple months ago) And he faces about $60,000 
LG>   KP>  in fines and restitution.  Bobby lost an appeal.  He claims 
LG>   KP>  to be taking it to the U.S.  Supreme Court!  .  .  .

LG>  It angers me when something like this happens.  I have just 
LG>  gotten off the phone with the Arizona State Bar's office.
LG> 
LG>  Robert Hirschfeld has *_NOT_* been disbarred.
LG> 
LG>  According to the office of the Disciplinary Clerk of the 
LG>  State Bar of Arizona, Hirschfeld was "placed on interim 
LG>  suspension on 6/8/95."  He was required to cease practice 
LG>  until the matter is resolved and is not "authorize to 
LG>  practice law until the disciplinary matters have been 
LG>  concluded".  A disciplinary hearing to determine what 
LG>  action, if any, may be taken against him is currently 
LG>  pending before a hearing committee which will ultimately 
LG>  make recommendations to the Arizona Supreme Court.  Until 
LG>  we know the results of that hearing, any comments on what 
LG>  might happen are nothing more than speculation and should 
LG>  be treated accordingly.

     Thanks, posted back to KP. 


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Marijuana!Addictive killer!" Bill "I didn't inhale" Clinton
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (1158)
To:      Anna Dobbyn                            30 Sep 95 22:32:10
Subject: 1ST "LADY" AIN'T SHIT                  

AD> MG>      Paraphrased from HRC in April 1992 the month before she 
AD> MG> turned out 45 perfect full size brioche in a professional 
AD> MG> oven to demonstrate her homemaking skills.

AD>  I'll outbake, and out-do her in anything else too.  She's 
AD>  not about anything I can't handle.

     But would the press cover you doing it without the slightest 
skepticism as though you had actually done it?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * History is what happened not what you think about it.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_951007 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (544)
To:      Tim Boothby                             4 Oct 95 21:12:10
Subject: Bible                                  

TB>  >  In spite of "Official Reports", Koresh's followers did not 
TB>  >  commit mass suicide.  By saying they did, it exonerates all 
TB>  >  Government involvement of the mass murder of innocent 
TB>  >  people.

TB>  The problem is that I've seen the film.  When you have two 
TB>  eyes, you don't need reports, official or otherwise.  When 
TB>  you see the fires started at the same time, at different 
TB>  locations you don't need people to tell you what you see.  I 
TB>  went home for a visit not too long ago, I grew up not too 
TB>  far from the sight and decided to take a peek.  What a 
TB>  goddamn waste.

     From the real time CNN coverage I only saw it start in one 
place.  About twenty minutes after it started I heard them relay 
a press release from DC that the Davidians had started the fire.  
During the week I heard much of the government evidence such as 
two snipers who saw it being started, people were captured on 
videotape starting it, not to mention the two agents they had 
inside and all the audio and video surveillance equipment they 
had inside the building.

     I agree, it is surprising with all of this evidence, that 
they only had one tank driver who saw something that looked like 
a fire being started testify and showed only the IR tape that was 
fortuitously left running.  It was sort of a waste of the 
opportunity.

     I was also interested in the arson contractor and how, in 
the first two days of his investigation that he expressed 
incredulity at how many places appeared to have been places the 
fire started and then settled on three as the number.  

     And the strangest thing is that there was no pattern to the 
fires on the IR tape.  The first we saw in TV was on the second 
floor and the stairs had been collapsed hours earlier.  And then, 
after the gymnast gets up there to light his fire, he simply 
lights it in the room it is in rather than pouring it in the 
halls first.  The other places are as strange, they were just lit 
in the kerosene storage rooms.  The lack of effort to block the 
exits with fire or something similar is very noteworthy by its 
absence.

     And then of course we have the credibility of the FBI in the 
matter.  For two years they were saying that absolutely nothing 
flammable was used when in fact at this hearing we find both CS 
gas and its solvent were both flammable and the type of gas 
grenade used was finally identified as a known incendiary type 
(1200 F burn.)  This is no surprise to those who have followed 
the subject but it must have come as a surprise to those who 
still believed the first story, that nothing flammable was used.

     It appears clear that if the FBI's activities did not start 
the fire it not of lack of willful carelessness.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The power to regulate is not the power to prohibit.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (547)
To:      All                                     4 Oct 95 18:40:10
Subject: Papal Prescience                       

     4 October 1995

     Pope John Paul II arrives in the United States having wisely 
scheduled his visit after the Simpson verdict.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * A strong back is a terrible thing to waste.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (548)
To:      All                                     4 Oct 95 19:02:10
Subject: religious bigotry                      

     In the following we have a classic example of religious 
bigotry that is unacknowledged as bigotry.  Were another religion 
substituted for christian, such as jewish, and an equally absurd 
claim made, it would be soundly denounced as antisemitic.

     Yet, as long as it is Chrisitian that is named, the bigots 
will assert its truth regardless of the absurdity.

     On 10/01/95 
   from TOM PARDUE 
     to ANDREW CONNER 
     on batf explains no ok 
in Fido-Civil Liberts

TP>  >  If the public education system is abandoned that is what 
TP>  >  will happen.  However I believe that their is enough Liberal 
TP>  >  Republicans to stop such an action.

TP>  There is no longer any such thing as a "liberal 
TP>  Republican." The christian coalition which now runs the 
TP>  party wouldn't allow it.  the closest thing you have to a 
TP>  liberal is Alren Spector, and he doesn't have a hope in 
TP>  hell of being elected president.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One BATF, one militia.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (549)
To:      Lester Garrett                          4 Oct 95 15:36:10
Subject: Robert Hirschfeld                      

LG>  MG> Thanks, posted back to KP.

LG>  You weren't planning to x-post that to the LAW Echo were 
LG>  you? {grin}

     I guess I should not have thought to do so.  I did keep it 
around some place.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (550)
To:      Bob Klahn                               4 Oct 95 21:43:10
Subject: CLINTON'S GUN BAN                      

BK>  SD>  I never said anything different.  Of course, the 2nd 
BK>  SD>  Amendment never mentioned anything about being just about 
BK>  SD>  sporting and hunting rifles.  At the time the Constitution 
BK>  SD>  was written, they were fully expecting the citizenry to 
BK>  SD>  have the same weapons as did the army -- so the people

BK>   At the time the constitution was written they had not even 
BK>   considered machine guns, modern gatling guns, modern 
BK>   gatling cannons, shoulder fired anti-aircraft rockets, 
BK>   etc.  You might say they should be legal, as somebody here 
BK>   actually did, but I will disagree with that.  The founders 
BK>   were great men, but they didn't know everything.

     For openers, the first militia law required ever man to 
outfit himself with a rifle suitable for military use at the 
time.  For seconds, rapid firing weapons and rockets were known 
at the time.  For thirds, manually operated gatling guns are 
still completely legal.  

BK>  SD>  could defend themselves against a tyrannical government -- 
BK>  SD>  as they had just done...

BK>   I'm more worried about defending myself from those who are 
BK>   on the opposite side from the govt.

     You had better be prepared to do it.  If there should be an 
insurrection, the government hasn't a chance in hell of 
controlling it with the military.  It will be up to people like 
you to do it.  That means, arm yourself if you are serious in 
your beliefs.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * MGiwer@efu.com
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (551)
To:      Moody Blues                             4 Oct 95 21:53:10
Subject: COLIN POWELL                           

MB>  AH>  Yea or Nay on Powell for President?  If Yea, as Independent 
MB>  AH>  or Republican?  *adh*

MB>     Based on what I have heard today, I'd vote for Powell as a
MB>     Rep or Ind....

     What did you hear?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "The government should fear the people."  Thomas Jefferson
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (552)
To:      George Noonan                           4 Oct 95 21:55:10
Subject: Congress email addres??                

GN>  FR> Frank

GN> Its on AOL.  But I am going to have to lear to DL on this board.

     Where on AOL?



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * A mime is a terrible thing to waste ... but wasting is fun.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (553)
To:      Michael Pilon                           4 Oct 95 22:08:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!                      

MP>  A recent ruling by the Supreme court of Canada has 
MP>  overturned a law prohibitting cigarette advertising.
MP> 
MP>      The Canadian Cancer society reently sent 100 under 16 
MP>  year old, volunteers to ask for cigarettes at stores.  In 
MP>  Ontario ( Most of Canada ?) store are not allowed to sell 
MP>  cigaretes to anyone under 18.  Over 80 % of the underage 
MP>  volunteers had no problems getting cigarettes.
MP> 
MP>      Oh it's ahappy day for the perveyors of the life 
MP>  shortening weed.  No doubt as minors are hooked there will 
MP>  be pressure to recind or reduce the non smoking laws.

     But look at all the money those early deaths save you folks 
in medical costs.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *               Want my gun?  Make my day.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_951008 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (644)
To:      Michael Pilon                           5 Oct 95 14:43:10
Subject: CP. NEW                                

MP>  MP>  I am sure if you looked somewhere in Military regs you
MP>  MP>  would find that he is expected to serve where the US
MP>  MP>  military assigns him.

MP>  MG>  Where and under who are different issues.  How about a 
MP>  MG>  paranoid example?  While serving with the UN he receives 
MP>  MG>  orders from the Pakistani (the EEO commander of the week) 
MP>  MG>  to start shooting the Canadian contingent?  What is he to 
MP>  MG>  do?

MP>  Hypothetical and an illegal order.  

     What is illegal about the order?

If he did he would be 
MP>  courtmartialled by the US Army.

     How can one be courts martialed for obeying orders?  After 
all, they were not under US command and so the US Army has no 
jurisdiction nor does the UCMJ.  

  As I understand it from 
MP>  personal experience all direct orders come from Contingent 
MP>  commanders.

     So he is a Paki.  What changed?

MP>  MG>  Follow orders of course, he is under orders from that 
MP>  MG>  commander.  What is the penalty for disobedience of a 
MP>  MG>  direct order?  Now who does Canada complain to?  Certainly 
MP>  MG>  not the US.  Either the UN or Pakistan, most likely the 
MP>  MG>  former.

MP>  Can you imagine the hew and cry for a really serious 
MP>  situation.  This clown New i is causing more tears to flow 
MP>  because he doesn't want to wear a shoulder patch.  Imagine 
MP>  if a looney tune order came about ?

     I am not asking about the order.  I am asking you who Canada 
would complain to when their entire contingent has been wiped 
out?

MP>  MG> Did you just say it can't happen?  Why not?  What could
MP>  MG> prevent it?

MP> Ask the good folks at Mai Lai...

     UN rules apply.  What do you think "being under the command 
of" means?  

MP>  MP>  WOuld you negate Korea.

MP>  MG> Orders in Korea came directly from the US President.

MP> Field orders came from the field.

     Does the term, chain of command, ring a bell with you?

MP>  MP>   Nato , what about exchanges.

MP>  MG>  Even in exchanges between our Army and our Air Force, there 
MP>  MG>  is no change of uniform or additional device indicating 
MP>  MG>  membership in the other service.

MP>  The US badge is a badge indicating what campaign 
MP>  designations meant in WW II.

     What are you talking about?

MP>  MP>    I served with US military on assignment to Canada and 
MP>  MP>    they often wore local insignias.  For example the 415 Sqn 
MP>  MP>    shoulder patch was worn by Americans.  Two Canadians died 
MP>  MP>    this weekend on a US AWACS air craft in Alaska, no doube 
MP>  MP>    they wore sqn patches.

MP>  MG>  A unit designation is not a national designation.  May I 
MP>  MG>  suggest they (you) did not wear anything saying "US Army" 
MP>  MG>  or its equivalent?

MP>  Nor do you wear anything indicating you are a soldier of 
MP>   anything other than your country .  We wear the same 
MP>   uniforms, rank insignia etc..

     What do the letters "UN" imply to you?

MP>  MP>      Spc New is a total asshole....  period.

MP>  MG>  You don't know a damned thing about him save what he has 
MP>  MG>  stated are his intentions to his superiors.  Are you going 
MP>  MG>  to be in Atlanta next year for the conclusion jumping 
MP>  MG>  event?

MP>  Okay a total military asshole.  He may in other ways be a 
MP>  great guy to know and fun to be with.  As to Atlanta I am 
MP>  fed up with most organized sports.  Real men play rugby .

     Eat your dead too?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One BATF, one militia.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (646)
To:      Michael Pilon                           5 Oct 95 13:50:10
Subject: CHRISTIAN COALITION                    

MP>  MP>  MP>   Is medicare a work of the devil.  Didn't Christ say 
MP>  MP>  MP>   something about helping the poor ? Gad no wonder I could 
MP>  MP>  MP>   never be born again, I have all these silly ideas about 
MP>  MP>  MP>   good will to fellow man...

MP>  MP>  MG>  Where is it written there is merit in forcing others to be 
MP>  MP>  MG>  charitable?

MP>  MP>  If it ain't in the US constitution it ain't anywhere right 
MP>  MP>  Matt ?

MP>  MG>  I will admit any acknowledged source on the subject of 
MP>  MG>  charity that you wish to discuss.  Which one holds that 
MP>  MG>  forcing others to give is meritorious towards the virtue of 
MP>  MG>  charity?
MP>  MG> 
MP>  MG>  If you would like to cite any such work endorsing force as 
MP>  MG>  meritorious I will be happy to hear of it.  For the moment 
MP>  MG>  we can even skip the validity of the religion.
MP>  MG> 
MP>  MG>  After you take ZERO screens for your examples, perhaps you 
MP>  MG>  can, in your own words, tell me why force equals charity.

MP>  Matt the only ZERO here is your interpretation of what I 
MP>  understand medicare to be.  

     You appear to be unaware it was designed as a system that 
would pay for itself.  In the face of impending bankruptcy, there 
are three choices, raise taxes, lower benefits or deficit finance 
it.  

As you may recall there are 
MP>  other countries in this world and the one I live in  ( as 
MP>  do most civilized Western nations) has a universal medical 
MP>  insurance plan.  

     I do find it interesting that about the only thing Canadians 
have to fall back on is, "We're civilized, really we are."  And 
as I noted many months ago, the Canadian solution for every US 
problem is to do things the Canadian way.

     On the third hand, how did Medicare turn into a "universal 
medical insurance plan"?

It is supported by the vast majority of the 
MP>  people.  I know as Lester has pointed out in his flawed 
MP>  logic must those 2 % who favour a US tier system medical 
MP>  plan be forced to participate.  I suppose the question could 
MP>  be better stated by asking must the 35000000  in the US be 
MP>  forced to toady to the Insurance companies.  Just who is 
MP>  being forced to do what.

     You should come south and become a democrat.  You do well in 
not saying "the people who want to choose" and jumping right to 
saying they are being forced.  The people who want to choose are 
being forced to choose.  And then, without the slightest 
hesitation characterize choice as toadying.  

MP>      I await your screen saver reply.

     It is unfortunate that Canada is so uncivilized you are 
forced to toady to the computer dealers.  It would be much more 
civilized for Canada to provide every citizen with an Amiga.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Don't fight crime, fight criminals.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (647)
To:      Michael Pilon                           5 Oct 95 14:16:10
Subject: CP. NEW                                

MP>  MP>  MP>      As a person who once served in a UN peace keeping force
MP>  MP>  MP>  ( Cyprus 1971-1972) I would say Spc New is a total
MP>  MP>  MP>  asshole.....

MP>  MP>  MG> You need to learn what our constitution is like.

MP>  MP>      Tell that to Korean vets or even NATO forces.  Hmmm what
MP>  MP>  that about learning about your constitution ?

MP>  MG>  US troops were not under other than US command in either 
MP>  MG>  case.  Perhaps you need to learn what that means?

MP>  First I think it is a silly rule to not be under foreign 
MP>  command.  

     It comes from the Constitution which you may also think is 
silly but it is not something to be taken lightly when that is 
the focus of the oath the military (and anyone else working for 
or elected to the government) takes.

MP>   In fact US troops have been and contiue to be in many 
MP>   instances.  

     You might find the time to provide examples some day.

MP>  But rules of engagement drawn up in 1776 
MP>  aside...  

     They are neither rules of engagement nor do they date from 
that year.

UN troops are in fact primarily under the command 
MP>  of their own people as they tend to operate in sectors 
MP>  independently.  Much like NATO.  Perhaps you need to learn 
MP>  what that means ?

     The issue is who is ultimately in charge.  I seem to 
remember some operation where the Canadian color of UN cannon 
fodder called the UN office that was in charge of the operation 
and found the "war room" had gone home for the night.  I think 
that was an excellent example of what it means.  

     An then there was the example a couple months ago were a few 
hundred fierce, battle-hardened, armed-to-the-teeth peace keepers 
are taken hostage without a shot being fired.  

     I have a very good picture of what it means to be under UN 
command.  I see it on the news regularly.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Deny guns and deny the right to self defense.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (648)
To:      Michael Pilon                           5 Oct 95 14:33:10
Subject: CP. NEW                                

MP>  MP>  MG>   Nor can they be required to obey illegal orders which is 
MP>  MP>  MG>   the point of this matter.  How can someone be ordered to 
MP>  MP>  MG>   wear the uniform of an army of which he is not a member?

MP>  MP>   When will you evern get it .....  Just like checkered 
MP>  MP>   paint, a yard of shore line, a sky hook...there is no such 
MP>  MP>   thing as a UN Army, let alone a UN uniform.

MP>  MG>  You appear unable to separate the issues here.  There is no 
MP>  MG>  stated or suspected connection with any new world order 
MP>  MG>  talk.

MP> Not by you but by others,

     Really?  Looking back to my checkered childhood, I remember 
the anti-UN talk in this country.  It has never been liked.  At 
one point there was a constitutional amendment making its way to 
ratification to clarify the constitutional issue on treaties that 
was only ended by a Supreme Court decision that confirmed the 
substance of that amendment.

MP>  MG>  This is an issue of whether or not an American (call it a 
MP>  MG>  quirk of our system) has any obligation to participate in 
MP>  MG>  activity whose orders do not originate with the president.  
MP>  MG>  As to the Canadian system and what you may have worn is 
MP>  MG>  clearly something from another legal system.

MP>  As you realize not all military orders originate with the 
MP>  President.  It is the assigment that originates with him.  If 
MP>  the president assigns US troops to Nato or a UN duty that 
MP>  is his order.  The rest is purely military day to day 
MP>  operations.

     Assignment in the sense you are using it has not occurred as 
yet.  And that is the issue whether there is any obligation to 
obey orders that do not derive from the constitution.  Assignment 
fine, but as subsequent orders do not come from the president, 
there is no oath to obey those orders.  

     So what was the wording of your oath?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The average American has one testicle and one breast.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (650)
To:      Michael Pilon                           5 Oct 95 14:53:10
Subject: MICHAEL NEW - A REAL                   

MP>  MG>  And since you were there, what is the wording of the oath 
MP>  MG>  you took when joining the army?

MP>  Gad this brings a big grin.  Hard to beleive it was 30 years 
MP>  ago just around this time.  I joined to get my way paid 
MP>  through dental school.  Four years later I was in the Ward 
MP>  Room ( Officer's Mess) of the Navy in Halifax and 
MP>  criticising the Royals as a bunch of freeloaders.  A NAvy 
MP>  Officer took me aside and reminded me that I had sworn an 
MP>  oath to the Royal Family and their heirs.  

     There is the difference, is it not?  Your primary oath was 
to people.  Thus you were subject, so to speak, to the whims of 
those people.

So my oath was 
MP>  taken with a hand on the Bible and an eye on my bank 
MP>  account ;).

     Loyalties such as yours are a national treasure.

MP>      I think the oath was modified in subsequent years 
MP>  toning the Royal part down.  Obviously it wasn't taken too 
MP>  seriously ;)

     The officer who took you aside reminded you that it was 
serious.  You should have realized that when you took it.

=====

     The US oath is to the Constitution, not to the president but 
mentions him and "the officers appointed over me."  The manner of 
appointment of officers is covered elsewhere in our Constitution.  
An improperly appointed officer would have no authority neither 
would an officer not appointed in accordance with the 
constitution.  

     Perhaps you don't think it should be that way.  On the other 
hand, I find it difficult to conceive of taking an oath to 
tabloid material.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * A UN acting against Bosnia can act against the US.Power=free
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (658)
To:      All                                     6 Oct 95 03:30:10
Subject: Email address for NORML                

     Can anyone post the EMail address for NORML?  Much 
appreciated.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * The thoughtless are never wordless.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_951009 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (715)
To:      All                                     7 Oct 95 03:13:10
Subject: Burn L. A. now?                        

JS>  Bob, did you read the latest WIRED, or at least see the 
JS>  cover?  Interestingly done.  The pix and article basically 
JS>  boiled down to "if OJ were white, and Nicole black, would 
JS>  there be any controversy about his guilt?"

     Rather more interestingly the "controversy" appears to be a 
media hook that does not exist in the population at large save 
for a few they dredge up to justify the lead.  I will grant I do 
not meet a lot of different people very day in person.  I do at 
least scan about 1000 Fido messages a day.  OJ messages are not 
that common.

     You should always keep in mind, this has been a media event 
from the beginning.  No, the media did not cause it.  A media 
personality started it or was at least involved in it.  And it 
was in LA, media capital of the world.  A good fraction of the 
people producing shows about it probably knew him.

     The people who are the media and the people who watch the 
media are synergistic.  For example, facts were reported and 
there was an initial interest because of OJ.  Then the media not 
only continues the report but reports the interest.  That brings 
in more people.

     Higher ratings encourage more coverage.  So they cover the 
araignment and some creative type admits they did not understand 
a word of it and calls an attorney.  They attorney says he will 
be happy to do an interview for a fee and the explanation draws a 
different audience in addition to the old audience.

     And from there every possible aspect of the entire event is 
covered from every possible angle.  Even if you are like me and 
don't really give a damn about it there were aspects of it that 
did interest me and I did give those a watch.  

     Most anything can be turned into such an event.  Lorena 
Bobbit was one differing in the duration and avoiding much 
coverage by the "sillyness" of the crime.  The traditional 
talking heads would not touch it.  (Violence is fine but please 
don't touch the sex.)

     The OJ difference was a media personality, sports hero, 
(good) movie star, commentator, commercial spots.  And here was 
all of the above in one event with infinite possibilities for 
digression upon aspects of it.  It is something like the Bible.  

     A well known if disjointed collection of writings upon which 
everyone has an opinion and thus open to every form of 
interpretation.  You can gather an attentive audience of devout 
atheists if you approach it right.  

     Back to the beginning.  Even though everything we have heard 
from jurors so far and considering the 3 hour deliberation 
indicates there was no way in hell there were race considerations 
in the verdict, this is the aspect the media has fixed on for 
this week.  Most likely by the time you read this there will be 
another aspect that is hot as this one will play out for lack of 
a followup.

     


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Income tax illegal?Trying to overthrow the government I see.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_951010 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (851)
To:      All                                     8 Oct 95 00:02:10
Subject: Nation of Islam                        

DA> * Originally Re: Nation of Islam
DA> ______________________________________________________________________

DA>  Did you know:
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that hates Jews with a burning 
DA>  passion.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that thinks Jews are conspiring 
DA>  against blacks.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that thinks Hitler "had some good 
DA>  ideas."
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that thinks whites are the genetic 
DA>  creations of an evil black scientist some 4,000 years ago, 
DA>  created simply to torment blacks for all eternity.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that teaches that blacks are 
DA>  decendants of extraterrestrial beings that arrived on Earth 
DA>  from flying saucers 10,000 years ago.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization whose leader says he regularly 
DA>  travels in UFOs and speaks with his Space Brothers about 
DA>  evil whites and Jews.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization many times larger than the Ku Klux 
DA>  Klan and the Aryan Nations combined.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that is growing more powerful every 
DA>  day.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that brainwashes children into 
DA>  believing racist twaddle.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that the media treats with kid 
DA>  gloves.
DA> 
DA>  This is an organization that Johnny Cochran is proud to 
DA>  associate with.
DA> 
DA>  These are the truths about the Nation of Islam.  Keep these 
DA>  things in mind when someone tries to tell you what good 
DA>  work they do.




---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, Hatemongering McCartyite.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (852)
To:      Anna Dobbyn                             8 Oct 95 01:11:10
Subject: IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONT 2/2              

AD> BK>  There is a good possibility that Samuel Weaver would be 
AD> BK>  telling his story today if his father hadn't shot him.

AD>  Now *THAT* is the most preposterous thing I've ever heard 
AD>  in my whole life.  And just what makes you think Randall 
AD>  shot his own son?  Get real, man!

     It came from the testimony of a marshal at the hearing.  It 
is invented out of revenge for Gerry Spence's surprise summation 
argument that one marshal shot the other.  It very closely fit 
the testimony.



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Paralegal is to lawyer as practical nurse is to doctor.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (853)
To:      Michael Pilon                           8 Oct 95 01:21:10
Subject: UP IN SMOKE !!!!!                      

MP>  LG> What were the results for alcohol?

MP>  Hey I grew up in Montreal where I used to go to taverns at 
MP>  15 for a beer and some food.  Photo ID..hey does this 
MP>  picture of the Queen on the one dollar bill count ? ;)...Un 
MP>  autre Molson Georges SVP :).

     What strange clothing you wore.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Critics of The Bell Curve cheated on the test.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (854)
To:      Loralie Freeman                         8 Oct 95 04:27:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!                      

LF>  MG>       But look at all the money those early deaths save you 
LF>  MG>  folks in medical costs.

LF>  You know, I hate to admit this....but does anyone else 
LF>  think that this statement makes sense in a perverse sort of 
LF>  way?!

     If there were a serious case for data the tobacco companies 
are suppressing this is it.  Every few years the media has the 
time to tear itself away from such pressing issues as the OJ 
trial and report the news.  Smokers do die earlier and have lower 
life time medical costs than non-smokers.

     Any rational government concerned about medical costs would 
be encouraging smoking.  There is no honest way to cite medical 
costs as a reason for objecting to smoking.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Tinkerbelle roasting on an open fire, Peter nipping at her t
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_951015 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (805)
To:      Loralie Freeman                        12 Oct 95 00:51:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!                      

LF>  MG>       Any rational government concerned about medical costs 
LF>  MG>  would be encouraging smoking.  There is no honest way to 
LF>  MG>  cite medical costs as a reason for objecting to smoking.

LF>  I know!  But it does seem to make sense on a perverse sort 
LF>  of level.  It *might* be time to callously say - sorry, you 
LF>  smoked all you life and you knew the risks.  You can't have 
LF>  this new lung, heart, or whatever.  We are giving it to 
LF>  someone who didn't have as much choice in the matter.

     It seems rather you are missing the point.  Doing everything 
we can right now, it is still less in average lifetime medical 
costs for smokers than nonsmokers.  

     Start with the most common form a death, stroke and heart 
disease.  Smokers get them younger and have the worst prognosis, 
that is, they die the soonest afterwards.  Nonsmokers live longer 
and therefore have other diseases before their stroke or heart 
attack and they live longer after them.

     And then there is the "horrible" lung cancer.  The smoking 
related forms of lung cancer (many of them are not) are among the 
most virulent and deadly.  The prognosis is on the order of 
months, the remission likelihood is near zero.  Nonsmokers live 
longer and get cancers that take much longer to kill and often 
remit after long expensive treatment only to live long enough to 
die of another slow killing disease.

     But instituting a "you knew the risks" policy would 
certainly cause more ill will than good as the fat would not 
receive treatment nor would those involved in dangerous 
activities (most sports) and the like.  And of course it would 
instantly terminate all treatment for some 90% of AIDS carriers.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 *          Matt "lord loves a cheerful" Giwer
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (830)
To:      Lewis Clark                            11 Oct 95 22:48:10
Subject: 1/4 Liar Clinton                       

LC>  GG>   Have you *EVER* known of a president in this century who 
LC>  GG>   hasn't "spewed a lot of lies" to get in office? I haven't, 
LC>  GG>   especially the Republican ones...

LC>  MG>  Another person who admits Clinton is no better than any 
LC>  MG>  Republican.  The ranks are swelling.

LC>  He is a LOT better, 

     I re-read the statement and it clearly says he is no better 
than.  Tell GG about it.

which is why he will be re-elected.  
LC>  Count on it.

     If he does it will be quite surprising.  It is difficult to 
see how anyone can be reelected when he and his party are going 
in different directions.  

     It is even more difficult to see what his strategy will be 
when Newt Gingrich has control of the legislative agenda of the 
country.  It has to be clear to any aware voter he can deliver on 
nothing without his party being in control of at least one house 
of Congress.  So many are retiring or have switched parties in 
the Senate that only the House is a possibility.  

     And considering he is most likely to be up against Dole and 
Dole is going to grandstand getting a term limits amendment 
before the states just before the election, it is not obvious 
what single issue Clinton can raise to get the press coverage.

     And then we need to consider the demographics of party 
members.  The majority of new party registrations are Republican.  
The majority of Democrat contributors are nearing retirement.  
Add to that that the only educational demographic majority the 
Democrats carried in 1992 was the "never completed high school"  
And we clearly see there is little hope for the current strategy 
of exploiting misunderstanding will succeed in any manner.  

     But then, perhaps Barnum was correct.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Trust government as far as you can overthrow it.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (831)
To:      Lewis Clark                            12 Oct 95 00:21:10
Subject: CLINTON'S GUN BAN                      

LC>  BK>    At the time the constitution was written they had not 
LC>  BK>    even considered machine guns, modern gatling guns, modern 
LC>  BK>    gatling cannons, shoulder fired anti-aircraft rockets, 
LC>  BK>    etc.  You might say they should be legal, as somebody 
LC>  BK>    here actually did, but I will disagree with that.  The 
LC>  BK>    founders were great men, but they didn't know 
LC>  BK>    everything.

LC>  MG>  For openers, the first militia law required ever man to 
LC>  MG>  outfit himself with a rifle suitable for military use at 
LC>  MG>  the time.  For seconds, rapid firing weapons and rockets 
LC>  MG>  were known

LC>   That is true of the first militia laws.  However, if the 
LC>   government can require that militia members supply their 
LC>   own guns, the government can also NOT require militia 
LC>   members to have their own guns.  The National Guard 
LC>   members are NOT required to provide their own weapons.

     You desperation to support your conclusion is not matched by 
your means of getting there.  If you will read the constitution 
for the first time, you will find congress has was delegated the 
power to make the militias uniform or, in the word they used, 
regular, as in regulate or regulated.  The power to regulate is 
not the power to prohibit.

     And, on the other third claw, the National Guard is part of 
the US Army and is not the militia according the US law.

     The laws at the time and continuing to this day essentially 
unchanged first defined militia membership under the regulation 
power granted to Congress.  Then, after membership was 
established, it regulated the weapons required.  The tradition of 
the men supplying their own weapons goes back, in writing, to the 
Magna Carta.  The change in the tradition is rather recent.

LC>  MG> at the time.  For thirds, manually operated gatling guns are
LC>  MG> still completely legal.

LC>  BK>  SD>  could defend themselves against a tyrannical government --
LC>  BK>  SD>  as they had just done...

LC>  BK>   I'm more worried about defending myself from those who are
LC>  BK>   on the opposite side from the govt.

LC>  MG>  You had better be prepared to do it.  If there should be an 
LC>  MG>  insurrection, the government hasn't a chance in hell of 
LC>  MG>  controlling it with the military.  It will be up to people 
LC>  MG>  like you to do it.  That means, arm yourself if you are 
LC>  MG>  serious in your beliefs.

LC>  On the contrary, the US military is perfectly capable of 
LC>  dealing with a bunch of nuts who go over the edge.  Count 
LC>  on it.

     Your ignorance of guerilla warfare is as vast as it in need 
of remedial study.  Try Liddel-Hart for the definitive word.  

     In the interim, in your own words, tell me how less than 
800,000 army of which barely 80,000 are combat duty are going to 
garrison every possible target in the country and do something 
useful against a guerilla movement?  (Call up the NG if you want 
but also tell me how long tax paying NG members can become paid 
employees of the government.)


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Internet:  a means of getting pornogrphy and bombs to kids
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (832)
To:      Lewis Clark                            12 Oct 95 00:42:10
Subject: COLIN POWELL                           

LC>  MB>  AH>   Yea or Nay on Powell for President?  If Yea, as 
LC>  MB>  AH>   Independent or Republican?  *adh*

LC>  MB>     Based on what I have heard today, I'd vote for Powell as a
LC>  MB>     Rep or Ind....

LC>  MG> What did you hear?

LC>  He is pro gun control, pro choice, pro affirmative action.  
LC>  In other words, he's a moderate.  That's why his approval 
LC>  rating is so high.

     You are hearing what you want to hear.  What I hear is just 
enough to sell the book.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (885)
To:      Jack Wilder                            12 Oct 95 18:21:10
Subject: Bible                                  

JW>  CF>  CF>> Mary got tired of waiting, and found someone else for
JW>  CF>  CF>> a nights fling.  When she became pregnant, she claimed
JW>  CF>  CF>> "Immaculate conception"

JW>  CF>  MG>       Married to an idiot dumb enough to believe that 
JW>  CF>  MG>  justifies finding another father.

JW>  CF> There is a world full of people that believe it.

JW>  MG> Amazing, isn't it?

JW>          What is amazing is that you would post such drivel 
JW>    without reading first hand knowledge.
JW> 
JW>          The assertion of "immaculate conception" was 
JW>    brought forth by the Catholic church almost 300 years 
JW>    A.D.  As any M.D.  can tell you, virgin birth does not 
JW>    equal I.C.

     An RC theologian has joined us.  Quite correct in that of 
course.  That gives us two absurdities instead of just one to 
deal with.

JW>          The "spirit of God" I.E.  virgin claim was made by 
JW>    an apparition in the night that was supposed to have 
JW>    appeared to Joseph.  If Mary claimed anything, it would 
JW>    have been immaterial to a Jew of that day; Would you 
JW>    believe her even today??
JW> 
JW>          In Luke there is a tale of visitation, but we have 
JW>    no indication that it originated with Mary.

     It was traditional to claim a larger than life figure had a 
god as a father.  No difference here.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Chipmunks roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at th
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_951018 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (736)
To:      Gary Rimar                             14 Oct 95 18:09:10
Subject: religious bigotry                      

GR> >       I am showing you trashing Christians as acceptable 
GR> >  while trashing Jews is not.
GR> > 
GR> >       Trash them all or none of them.

GR>  I vote for none of them.  Also, Jews do get trashed.  No 
GR>  one has a monopoly on religious bigotry in this country.
GR> 
GR>          Gary (Just ask Louis Farrakhan if you don't believe 
GR>  me) Rimar

     Perhaps we could limit the discussion of who can get away 
with trashing to civilized people doing it?  (As for what he and 
NOI can get away with, it is no secret they have been stockpiling 
weapons for over a decade with the express intention of starting 
a revolution.  Ever seen Reno send in the tanks?)

     But I was talking acceptability.  For example, it is clearly 
permissible without raising an eyebrow to say the religious right 
controls the Republican Party despite the complete absence of 
evidence of control.  With a similar lack of evidence, claim 
liberal jews control the media and take notes on the differences 
in the  response.

     It is my experience that even a discussion like this, of 
public response, can excite claims of finding antisemitism in the 
discussion.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton smoked pot.  Is that for or against drugs?
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (737)
To:      All                                    14 Oct 95 16:17:10
Subject: oj                                     

     On 10/11/95 
   from TOM GOODMAN 
     to DENNIS,.JAMES 
     on oj 
in Fido-Law Forum

TG>  Another Note:  Both Prosecutors Marsha Clark and 
TG>  Christopher Darden have registered with the William Morris 
TG>  Agency in Hollywood I think.  They are the most famous 
TG>  theatrical and literary agents in Southern California.
TG> 
TG>      Chirs has already been filmed in what must be one of 
TG>  his first engagements.  Seems everybody is gonna make money 
TG>  on the murders!

     Everyone is going to make money off of the people with a 
morbid fascination with these murders.  

     What is interesting are OJ's attempts to make something from 
it through the media.  We just might be able to calibrate their 
"taste" threshold.  This is perhaps the first sign of the media 
having a threshold of taste.  


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * "Cats make rotten observers."  Schroedinger
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (738)
To:      James Littlehammer                     14 Oct 95 18:00:10
Subject: 1st religion                           

JL>        LG> ???  I haven't the foggiest idea what you have in mind.

JL>     MG> Federalist Paper.  This "wall of separation" comes from a
JL>     MG> letter by Jefferson who was out of the country when the
JL>     MG> Constitution was being drafted.

JL>   JL> True that's where the actual phrase came from, but there
JL>   JL> is no doubt that he nonetheless exerted a lot of
JL>   JL> influence.  As for the Federalist Papers, I'll do a search
JL>   JL> in the next few days and see what I can find.

JL>  MG> I'll be waiting.

JL>   Well, a search of the Federalist Papers turned up nothing 
JL>   relevant, which doesn't surprise me.  {The only remotely 
JL>   relevant section I found might be in #19, where they 
JL>   {presumably Madison} discuss religion as a cause of 
JL>   divisiveness which "...severed the league.." of the 
JL>   Swiss.}
JL> 
JL>   However, I did post a copy of the letter from which that 
JL>   phrase is taken, as well as some comments re: Madison's 
JL>   feelings on the issue, in a post to C.T.  Day, reproduced 
JL>   below.
JL> 
JL>   If you have the time, I highly recommend L.W.  Levy, "The 
JL>   Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment" 
JL>   for a good discussion on this issue.

     If you have the research resources, the place to look is the 
debate in the first Congress regarding the wording of the 1st 
amendment that would be submitted to the states for ratification.  
A place to start is 

'The Origins of the American Constitution, A Documentary History

Edited by Michael Kammen, Penquin Books, 1986; and 'Creating the
Bill of Rights

JL>  >> ****
JL>          "_To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the
JL>  Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut_

JL>         January 1, 1802

     As you can see from the date, the letter can have had no 
influence on the 1st amendment.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * I have been alive just a little longer than I can remember.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (740)
To:      Patrick Corcoran                       14 Oct 95 18:22:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!                      

PC>  MG>  So why should there be any penalty for any victimless 
PC>  MG>  crime? As long as it is not treated like alcohol (another 
PC>  MG>  such crime) there is hardly a basis for treating tobacco 
PC>  MG>  like this.
PC>  MG> 
PC>  MG>  Why not have the tobacco police do something serious, like 
PC>  MG>  give warnings to the drug dealers on the street outside of 
PC>  MG>  those evil tobacco sellers?  I am truly impressed with the 
PC>  MG>  priorities.

PC>  Is selling tobacco to minors really a victimless crime?  By 
PC>  far most smokers got hooked while minors.  

     Excuse me.  Can you point to any evidence showing any 
difference between age of first use of tobacco, alcohol and 
marijuana?

PC>   Over 400,000 people die each year from tobacco-related 
PC>   causes.

     And about 3.2 million people die every year in this country.  
[population / average life expectancy]  That means 12% of deaths 
IN THE WORST CASE have some relationship a disease found more 
common in smokers.  

     To put that further in perspective.  A heart attack is 
related to smoking.  A non-smoker dies of a heart attack, he has 
died of smoking related cause.  So if we go by averages again 
with 30% of the people in this country being smokers, only 
120,000 (3.6% of all deaths) smokers die of smoking related 
causes.

     That is the worst case that can be attributed to smoking 
caused deaths and even that does not establish that smoking was 
the cause.  

     And a more truthful statement is not deaths but dying some 
years earlier because of smoking, making the simple observation 
everyone is going to die.

     Further studies have shown that after at most 10 years of 
not smoking that for morbidity and mortality purposes it is as 
though they have never smoked.  That gives a person starting 
under 18 some 40 years to quit and still have a non-smoker's life 
expectancy.

     To look at it from a more perverse point of view.  Smoking 
is one of the safest ways to avoid contracting altzheimer's or
parkinson's or any number of other debilitating diseases of 
extreme age.  You are less likely to live long enough to contract 
them.

PC>  I say leave the adults alone, and get government out of 
PC>  their business as much as possible.  I usually oppose 
PC>  increases in tobacco taxes, and I am similarly opposed to 
PC>  continued price supports to grow tobacco.  However, there 
PC>  are laws on the books against selling tobacco to minors.  
PC>  Those laws should be enforced, and flagrant violators of 
PC>  those laws should have their licences to sell tobacco 
PC>  revoked.

     The tobacco police should be taking away the licenses of 
drug dealers.  It is a sign of a very, very misplaced priority in 
our society to be making an issue of something so trivial.


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, Hatemongering McCartyite.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (742)
To:      All                                    15 Oct 95 03:12:10
Subject: Changing attitudes                     

                       Changing attitudes
                               by
                           Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <10/13>

     It is often instructive to have clear examples of how
attitudes change over time particularly in political matters.  We
do not always realize how greatly things can change.  We then
have the idea that the present viewpoint is the one that always
existed and is somehow the one and only correct attitude.
     A clear example exists how the federal government was
viewed prior to the war between the states.  In the first half of
the 19th century world sentiment against slavery.  The nations
were outlawing it.  The United States was one of the last
holdouts.
     To present a better face to the world, slave trading was
made illegal in the District of Columbia.  That does not sound
like much on the face of it.  On the presumption that it was not
an empty gesture, lets examine what it indicated.
     In international terms it clearly set the federal government
as different from the state governments.  The federal government
exercised its police powers in the only place it could, the
District of Columbia as a demonstration of the federal position on
slavery.  It is not conceivable today, that the District of
Columbia could be emblematic of the federal government but back
then it was good internationally.
     And note that the District was the only place it could
exercise such power.  Who today but those considered "kooks"
would hold that the police powers of the federal government are
limited to the District?  The equivalent today would be, for
example, that the federal laws against drugs applied only to the
District.
     One step further, the laws were against the slave trade
only.  They did not prohibit the ownership of slaves.  They did
not infringe property rights.
     Using the drug example, this would be like banning the sale
of drugs but not having any laws against manufacture, possession
or use of drugs.  Property rights gave a good imitation of being
inviolate in those days.
     And so did state's rights.  Remembering the Dred Scott
decision, if it was legal to own slaves in one state that
ownership had to be honored in other states.  Try visiting from
Alaska with your personal stash of marijuana and pleading that
possession is legal in Alaska in the courts of another state.
     If you are completely against drugs and feel federal laws
are proper, substitute guns or whatever you feel is improperly
subject to federal laws.  For the most part, the source of the
permission for these federal laws is the ubiquitous interstate
commerce clause.  It has been invoked so many times in so many
ways for so many years that it is difficult to imagine the
country as a whole ever having a different viewpoint.
     And look at it from another direction.  Lincoln was clearly
about as anti-slavery as one could be without being a John Brown.
So was most of the North.  But there was no political call to
over-ride the rights of states even in so noble a cause as the
abolition of slavery.
     Secession had been under way for about five months before an
exchange of gunfire actually started the war.  There was no
political call for war to prevent secession prior to the
shooting starting.  The issue of secession was still up in the
air in those days, still is actually, yet it is now considered
settled when it was not as the issue was the shooting not the
secession.
     Lets take it one step further in those days regarding guns.
Would they have thought military weapons should be banned?
People owning the military weapons of the time were those first
called up to fight that war.  The idea that a man could not
respond for lack of a weapon would be nearly unthinkable.
     And in that regard, a man without a gun could take money
from another and show up in his place.  That is unthinkable
today, nothing to raise an eyebrow in those times.  A body is a
body when it came to the interchangeable battlefield combatants.
     It does not matter in fact, only in principle and we care
more about principle than practicality.  In fact, in the militia
sense, it is certainly better to have a paid 20 year old in the
field than an out of shape and rich 44 year old.
     But since I have raised comparative principles, their
response to being forced to fight in a war they did not choose to
fight, the draft, led to the worst riot in the history of this
country.  They too were interested in principles but not the
principles of today.
     Viewpoints and principles do change and not necessarily for
the better or worse, simply they are different in different
times.  The perennial problem for the wise is to separate the
truly good from the merely different.

                            * * * * *

        Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

     To save long distance calls.  One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification
is requested.  If you Xpost everything, one notification will do.
     1)   You send a proof copy if printed media to the address
below.
     2)   The byline and address below is included.
     3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
     4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of
judgement proof people.

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



---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Diogenes was disappointed in Little Rock.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (743)
To:      Michael Pilon                          14 Oct 95 21:16:10
Subject: IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONT                  

     On 10/06/95 
   from MICHAEL PILON 
     to ANNA DOBBYN 
     on IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONT 
in Fido-Debate

MP>  AD> Have you interviewed Branch Davidians ? Where do you get 
MP>  AD>  your info ? Is it

MP>  AD>  I certainly have!  I was, in fact, present at part of the 
MP>  AD>  trial.  I also have documentation.

MP>  What do you mean by documentation ? Do you see it as part 
MP>  of the BIG CONSPIRACY or just a total fuck up by ill 
MP>  trained people? 

     Why would you hold those to be the only possibilities?  They 
were not in any sense of the word, ill-trained.  There is plenty 
of evidence in support of several criminal conspiracies as part 
of Waco operations but not of any that go beyond it.  This 
evidence comes direct from hearing testimony.

MP>  AD> Ah, yes.... I keep forgetting that "patriot" is now a
MP>  AD> dirty word, and that it's the political equivalence of
MP>  AD> being a criminal...  It's hard to get used to these new
MP>  AD> definitions.  (The term 'New Speak' comes to mind...)

MP>  If I were an AMerican and someone said I was not a 
MP>  *Patriot* (tm) because I didn't beleive in the conspiracy 
MP>  hokum I would be insulted.  I hate to equate it to the more 
MP>  fanatical of the communists but they cornered the market on 
MP>  jingoism.  Does the term Comrade ring a bell, those who were 
MP>  not zealots were of course outside the chosen realm of the 
MP>  commrades and hence traitors.  Hmmm shurely not a parallel 
MP>  somewhere.

     Would you be the first to point out just who besides Linda 
Thompson is talking conspiracy?

MP>  AD>  You've *BEEN* told--over, and over and over again.  You do 
MP>  AD>  not *LISTEN*.  I'm not telling you anything you have not 
MP>  AD>  already heard before.  The problem here is not that you 
MP>  AD>  haven't been told, but that you just don't listen.  Period.

MP>  No Anna you have not told me anything that is not short of 
MP>  paranoia and an echo of what the *PATRIOT* propagandists 
MP>  are feeding you.  SOme of the posts on these topics from oyu 
MP>  and others in this echo are almost verbatim from what I 
MP>  hear on short wave.  Did you say something about New Speak ? 
MP>  I thought you did !

     What shortwave do you listen to and why?


---
 * RM 1.3 01261 * Only the FBI could lose a front door.
--- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
 * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101


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

+++■■■■■ r_951026 ■■■■■+++ --- *FIDO AUTO* ---
From:    Matt Giwer                             Area: Debate - (489)
To:      All                                    18 Oct 95 05:27:10
Subject: homepage                               

10/15/95

     Anyone with nothing better to do with their copious free 
time might want to waste some of it at

http://users.aol.com/mgiwer/

     Nothing you haven't seen here as yet but then I am doing by 
own debugging, which is like being one's own lawyer.  

     In any event, the light dawned yesterday that AOL would 
permit web pages and this was a chance to test my crash course 
(self taught) in HTML guruism.  I expect to be on a more 
responsive site in a few weeks but here is the place to start.

     If you are not into browsing, the files are available FTP 
but the filenames are not descriptive.  Grab index.html first and 
not that the file you might want is inside the quotes in 

descriptive title

     and the description follows the ">.

----------------------- or 
10/18/95 Things move quickly in cyberspace. There are now about 1.9M of material available through this homepage reference. It is easiest to go through the homepage at the above address to get everything. You will find my gun.faq, basic documents relating to the US, my turgid writings, and "something completely different" at the moment. ===== GUN.FAQ Those who have been interested in my GUN.FAQ it is available ftp://users.aol.com/mgiwer5/gunfaq.zip You can web access it in pieces via the main menu at http://users.aol.com/mgiwer or you can go direct to http://users.aol.com/mgiwer5/q0.htm ===== Basic documents direct but piecemeal (no zip file as yet) ftp://users.aol.com/mgiwer5/index.htm for a listing of the files. ////////// Hint: HTtp and Ftp ~~ ~ tp is transfer protocol, HT is HyperText and F is File. If ~ ~ it is set up as a hypertext web page, you can not go wrong pulling by ftp. Any file with an .EXT of .htm or .html is almost certainly in browser readable format. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Chipmunks roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at th --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (734) To: Paul Levin 21 Oct 95 03:35:10 Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!! PL> Actually, I have NEVER seen smoking related as a cause of PL> death on a death certificate. Agreed but when that point was made some activist doctors started listing it. PL> MG> Further studies have shown that after at most 10 years PL> MG> of not smoking that for morbidity and mortality purposes it PL> MG> is as though they have never smoked. That gives a person PL> MG> starting under 18 some 40 years to quit and still have a PL> MG> non-smoker's life expectancy. PL> Which Journal? Good question. It came out so long ago I have no idea. Ask your doctor next time. I doubt he can name the journal but certainly can confirm it is the consensus of opinion among doctors. PL> MG> To look at it from a more perverse point of view. PL> MG> Smoking is one of the safest ways to avoid contracting PL> MG> altzheimer's or parkinson's or any number of other PL> MG> debilitating diseases of extreme age. You are less likely PL> MG> to live long enough to contract them. PL> That is sick! I love it! May I use it? Of course. PL> If you want real fun, go outside of a local hospital and PL> count the number of people in scrubs who are smoking. I PL> may be one of them. I certainly wouldn't want someone in need of a smoke in the OR. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes even vultures lose patience and kill something. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (735) To: Paul Smith 21 Oct 95 03:39:10 Subject: UP IN SMOKE !!!!! PS> MG> I am only pointing out that you have to send armed PS> MG> people to confiscate guns. That they are armed is an PS> MG> invitation to a confrontation. The collectors will start PS> MG> dying. PS> I suppose you advocate disarming the collectors? LESS PS> people will die that way? I am warning against attempting to collect them in the first place. Even DC did not seriously consider following through on its threat to send the police to collect the registered guns. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * EYE 4 NEWT --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (750) To: Lewis Clark 19 Oct 95 22:13:10 Subject: 1/4 Liar Clinton LC> MG> If he does it will be quite surprising. It is difficult to LC> MG> see how anyone can be reelected when he and his party are LC> MG> going in different directions. LC> It's all relative. The liberal wing of the Democratic LC> Party is hurting. My be is that they will come around and LC> support Clinton simply because the alternative is LC> unacceptable. They ran away from him in 1994 and look what happened. Of course, there are those who always say things could be worse. LC> MG> It is even more difficult to see what his strategy will be LC> MG> when Newt Gingrich has control of the legislative agenda of LC> MG> the country. It has to be clear to any aware voter he can LC> MG> deliver on nothing without his party being in control of at LC> MG> least one house of Congress. So many are retiring or have LC> MG> switched parties in the Senate that only the House is a LC> MG> possibility. LC> That depends on what he wants to "deliver." The LC> Republicans seem to have gone along with him on welfare LC> reform, although the radical right tried to come down too LC> heavy on the children of teenaged mothers. What "gone along with"? He never proposed a thing. He didn't do anything and is against everything the Republicans are trying to do. LC> MG> And considering he is most likely to be up against Dole and LC> MG> Dole is going to grandstand getting a term limits amendment LC> MG> before the states just before the election, it is not LC> MG> obvious what single issue Clinton can raise to get the LC> MG> press coverage. LC> Dole supports term limits? Hahahahaha! You DO realize the LC> irony there, right? He could have let the amendment die but he changed his vote so he could bring it up for a vote again in September 1996, just before the election. And what would he care? He has one more term at best. In the worst case he would have two more possible terms after the amendment is ratified. That would put him close to 90 before being affected. LC> MG> And then we need to consider the demographics of party LC> MG> members. The majority of new party registrations are LC> MG> Republican. The majority of Democrat contributors are LC> MG> nearing retirement. Add to that that the only educational LC> MG> demographic majority the Democrats carried in 1992 was the LC> MG> "never completed high school" And we clearly see there is LC> MG> little hope for the current strategy of exploiting LC> MG> misunderstanding will succeed in any manner. LC> That is true, which explains why the Republicans cannot LC> hope to capture the White House or retain control of LC> Congress. If your point is that high school dropouts will swell the party ranks then I would have to ask you how that will happen. Beyond that, I do not see how an increasing number of Republicans and decreasing the income of Dem contributors will have the effect you conclude. LC> MG> But then, perhaps Barnum was correct. LC> I certainly thought so after November of 1994. Perhaps true. But the people are getting much of what they voted for. The complaints from the Perotistas is that they are not getting enough of it. They were the swing vote last time. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * November 14, 1995, Train-wreck, USA. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (751) To: Bob Klahn 19 Oct 95 22:28:10 Subject: 2ND AMENDMENT/GUN CTR 01 BK> BK>> LG> have the same weapons as did the army. . .." Granting BK> BK>> LG> that premise means that as the army acquired the arms you BK> BK>> LG> mention, the citizen would also be able to acquire them. BK> BK>> Which would imply the right to aquire nuclear weapons. BK> MG> And? Does the danger of a lion imply the power to BK> MG> prohibit the ownership of housecats? Or does it is imply a BK> MG> legitimate power to require a level of security and public BK> MG> safety? BK> Seems to me you are dodging my point. Do you insist on the BK> absolute right to keep and bear any arm that exists, of BK> are we discussing exactly what the limits are. BK> If you argue there is an absolute right to own any cat, BK> then that implies the right to own a lion. I will argue BK> for restrictions on ownership of lions. If you agree that BK> there is no absolute right to keep a lion, I will then BK> discuss exactly where the line is. You penchant for jumping to absolutes when it suits you is not a matter exemplary of honesty. I hold there is an absolute right to do, own, say anything as long as it is not a direct harm to others. I also hold that prudence dictates appropriate safety measures for some things. That the state enforces prudence in the form of licensing is a matter of applying group wisdom to particular issues. Clearly there are no laws against owning lions else zoos and circuses would be in violation of those laws. There are requirements for a permit to own them. These are first a matter of public safety and second proper treatment of the animals. Similarly, in Florida, there is a law requiring every cat to have some vaccination and it is illegal to sell or even give away a cat without that shot. You will also find a similar law regarding the ownership of dogs and rabies shots. Nuclear weapons would require commensurate precautions for ownership. As you know, there is no law against owning them. (Be the first to cite the law.) If you wish to manufacture your own, you will find even the basics require significant licensing requirements. When you start getting serious, you will find no one will sell you what you need. But, there is no law against you owning a nuclear weapon. BK> BK>> The courts have long held the second amendment applies to BK> BK>> a well regulated militia. BK> MG> You are not the first to make this claim and I have BK> MG> summaries of every SC case and most of the district and BK> MG> circuit cases of interest. Would you provide the cases BK> MG> that support your claim as I can not find any. BTW: BK> MG> Quote FROM the case when you cite it. BK> Show me one case where the courts have held the government BK> can not place any restrictions on gun ownership at all? If BK> there were such a case every gun law would have been BK> overturned. You are not the first to make the claim that BK> BK>> The courts have long held the second amendment applies to BK> BK>> a well regulated militia. I also invited you to be the first to demonstrate that the claim is correct. It appears you have declined the honor. BK> I would ask you to send me copies of the cases, but I BK> notice you qualified it with the words, "of interest". BK> Does that mean every case related to gun control, or, BK> merely of interest to you. Available either ftp or http from users.aol.com/mgiwer5/sc3.htm main reference http://users.aol.com/mgiwer Get them if you are interested. BK> No, I do not have the cases. I merely quote from lawyers I BK> have heard speak on the subject. If you are a lawyer, BK> working in the field, please let me know. If not, have you BK> actually read the cases? If so, in which ones did the BK> courts strike down the gun control laws? And then it would behoove you to ask those attorneys for those cases. Were you paying for a professional opinion or merely BSing with them? I know several attorneys, none of which follows these cases and, were I to ask for a professional opinion, they would start charging by the hour while doing the research. BK> BK>> arms. IOW, you have the right to own your own Nuke. BK> MG> There is NO LAW against it. Please cite and quote the BK> MG> law that does if you wish to claim otherwise. BK> You look it up. Impossible to do as the law does not exist. Or, try to obtain one. You know quite well BK> the government will stop you, the courts will allow it, BK> and you will go to prison if you try to get your own BK> stockpile of nukes. Demanding that I provide a specific BK> provision is a meaningless attempt to divert the arguement BK> from the facts. ** Continued in the next message... --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (752) To: Jack Wilder 19 Oct 95 23:19:10 Subject: Bible JW> MG> It was traditional to claim a larger than life figure had a JW> MG> god as a father. No difference here. JW> A friend of mine calls it Hercules revisited!(;->* Along with Alexander the Great, the founders of Rome, Mithra (the cult that had most of the Pauline ideas he wrote of), and of course the Roman Emperors. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Paralegal is to lawyer as practical nurse is to doctor. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (753) To: Michael Pilon 19 Oct 95 23:31:10 Subject: CHINA MP> MP> A US senator is on record as calling Canada's vast water MP> MP> supplies a "Continental Resource". Don't think it won't MP> MG> If you folks had ever taken your military seriously you MP> MG> wouldn't be so ripe for picking. MP> Matt you make the strangest statements. Imagine a MP> fanatically armed country on your borders ? I am sure the MP> average American sleeps better knowing they don't have to MP> keep a million troops up north. Gad look at the MP> preoccupation with Cuba. Do you really think Canada would warrant that much excitement? After all, Cubans are fighters. MP> MG> After all their officers don't even take their oaths MP> MG> seriously. MP> Matt I owe you a Rat's ass of explanation but since these MP> posts are often read by many... WHen I was in undergrad in MP> Montreal ( a city in Central Canada) Been there. Ruby Foo's was a great pleasure and the restaurant through "Richshaw Alley" was a delight to the senses. A lovely city. Obviously French rather than Canadian. I found out that the MP> Army would pay my dental education. So the day I applied to MP> McGill ( a University in Montreal) I applied to the Army. A scot frog. I MP> was sworn in in October. I had received a medical exam, an MP> interview and wrote a test. That was my only military MP> contact. I did not receive a Uniform until I went to basic MP> training the following summer. So my swearing in and MP> filling in of 24 forms in 10 copies was a very MP> non-emotional event in my life. BUT.. I served for 23 year MP> after that and at no time disgraced myself or my Corps. I didn't claim you disgraced anything. I simply pointed out what you admitted then and now, you did not pay attention to your oath. It was just another job to you. Peace time warrior, so to speak. And my point is that Canada is very well known for how it short changes its military. The next time I come across my old address book I will look up the names of some of the admirals who talked to me about it. It was no secret. We would do everything we could for your Navy given the shitty way your treated it. MP> For a Military wannabee such as yourself A military "as close as they would let me." it might come MP> as a bit of a surprise to know that the fanatical, flag MP> clutching trooper is usually not well thought of. I have MP> this from infantry officers in several countries including MP> the US. Fighters are what are needed, of course. I have no idea what you mean by flag clutching in this context. MP> Now back into the cammies and watch the horizon for MP> commie Cubans !! We finally did finally stop them from supplying Nicaragua and thence El Salvador without pissing off the SU and violating the missile crisis agreements. Of course if it had been the responsibility of Canada to keep the SU out of Latin America they would have it. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * If OJ had destroyed federal property while killing ... --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (754) To: Michael Pilon 19 Oct 95 23:53:10 Subject: CHRISTIAN COALITION MP> MG> So? Every time the government gets involved there are such MP> MG> problems. There is no perfect system. As such no MP> MG> government can find one either. Every intervention in MP> MG> favor of one is a harm to another. Optimization of benefit MP> MG> is maximization of the harm to the remaining. MP> It is an attempt to provide optimum care to all. Goals are worthy and noble. I am talking about what can be accomplished. A private MP> plan would provide first class care to a few. Strangely our thousands of private plans do not work that way. A great idea MP> for those without a social conscience. Those who can excuse theft from some for the benefit of other have no conscience. MP> MG> A government run system would give you an Amiga, as the MP> MG> Brit system gave them another outdated piece of shit when MP> MG> the BBC was running its computer course. One size fits all MP> MG> when the government it running the show. MP> In an intersting update Canada became independent in 1867 MP> and is no longer a part of Brit politics. In other new MP> today in Guam ( where dat ???) But of course your medical system benefits and harms everyone exactly to the same extent. It is a government system. It can not preferentially help or harm anyone. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Income tax illegal?Trying to overthrow the government I see. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (758) To: Diane Coghill 20 Oct 95 22:07:10 Subject: 1/4 Liar Clinton DC> LC> MG> And then we need to consider the demographics of party DC> LC> MG> members. The majority of new party registrations are DC> LC> MG> Republican. The majority of Democrat contributors are DC> LC> MG> nearing retirement. Add to that that the only educational DC> LC> MG> demographic majority the Democrats carried in 1992 was the DC> LC> MG> "never completed high school" And we clearly see there is DC> LC> MG> little hope for the current strategy of exploiting DC> LC> MG> misunderstanding will succeed DC> Can you quote a source for this information, or did you DC> just make it up to sound good? Voted for the Voted for the Education Stupid Democrats Republicans ___------ ---------------- -------------- no high school diploma 61% 39% high school graduates 47% 53% some college 41% 59% college graduates 45% 55% Source: USA Today, Nov 9th, 1992 You can see why the current Dem plan to exploit the misunderstandings people have about the Rep reform program appears to be succeeding. It appeals to the undereducated. ===== I don't have one for the contributors but it was in the news in the last month or two. You local paper should be able to help you find find it. Nor for the party registration but this is has been going on for over ten years. You certainly should have come across it before. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Joseph Nagarya, pet rock of the Law echo. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (759) To: Bob Klahn 20 Oct 95 23:42:10 Subject: 2ND AMENDMT/GUN CTRL 01 BK> BK>> BTW, if the constitution does not grant rights, I wonder BK> BK>> where they do come from. BK> MG> The Origin of Human Rights BK> MG> BK> MG> We hold that our rights are not granted by our BK> MG> government or by any agency. The US concept of government BK> MG> holds the people are BK> Well, this is a first. I have actually read one of your BK> polemics in it's entirety. Of course, the only reason I BK> did was, you addressed it to me. That and it was a reply BK> to my question. BK> BK> Actually the question was more an inducement to anyone to BK> offer an opinion on the subject. I guess it worked. BK> Thank you for an interesting message. One of the few I BK> have ever said that to you about. Or, is this the first? BK> Anyway, it does have one quality to recommend it strongly. BK> It agrees with my position. Now you see what you have been missing. BK> I have expressed the belief that the true purpose of BK> religion is to establish and maintain social order. Religion is for those not bright enough or old enough to figure it out for themselves. Myth and Religion and The Bell Curve by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <2/4> The school prayer issue is one that is not taken as more than a passing matter of partisan political debate. The issue does go much deeper. As recommended by the authors of The Bell Curve society needs simple laws that everyone can grasp. Religion as myth is one of those simple things that are needed to deal with all levels of intellectual ability. The structure of myth is what we all share as part of our nature as humans. If we could speak in myth we could probably speak with our nearest biological neighbors. Myth is the grand scheme by which we incorporate the chaos of reality into personal perception and organization. Religion is a quasi-intellectual codification of myth. Although religion institutes rules for specific myths it still relies totally upon the schematic of myth. Myth is what is it necessary for people to learn in terms of the society in which they live. Consider that every hero [us, you and me] must be removed from their comfortable lives. That means us heroes must (and will) be faced with the unexpected, the unpredictable, the unexplainable, i.e. chaos, in our lives. Myth has it that the hero will struggle to come to grips with this new reality. We know we must deal with the death of a loved one or anything else that comes along and we must continue to live despite it. Myth has it that after this struggle with chaos we will be transformed into a new person who never again faces a struggle with a recurrence of this same mythic evil which is chaos. And once we have first dealt with chaos we are expected to become stronger and deal with the same again. And if we do not deal with it, if we do not triumph we feel we have failed. And the failed hero tries again. And once the hero has triumphed chaos never strikes him again in the same manner. It comes at him with completely new challenges that are rarely as great as the first. This not only explains the failure of movie sequels it also addresses there being a defining point in everyone's life where this metaphor with chaos permits one to consider everything after less of a struggle, less of a challenge, less of an intrusion upon the perception we deal with daily. These are the simplest points of myth. Myth is the framework within which we structure the chaotic nature of reality. Intellectually the structure of myth is what religion specializes in doing. Any myth, as long as it is good, is not sufficient, rather it has to be a particular form of the myth. But the value of the myth it that it communicates with all levels of intelligence. Even the simplest mind, the lowest on the Bell Curve can understand right from wrong in terms of myth. There are pathologic personalities that can not but they are distinct from the simple minded although at times they overlap. Which brings us around to religion in school. The authors of The Bell Curve point out the necessity of teaching everyone the basics of justice and law in terms they can understand. The method must be simple so they can understand it. It can not be "to hard" for them. It can not be the message "we have to send your DNA to the lab to convict you." It has to be a message of, "if you harm others you are punished." Myth is the ordering structure we use to deal with the chaos of reality. It even includes the hero meeting a wise man or a god or some such which tells us that asking advice and following it is a good thing to do. Myth even has what the hero does in old age, he retreats from power and becomes the wise man to be consulted. That myth is the structure of the mind is also the reason we have such a problem with science. Science is an intellectual exercise that uses tools of reason that are not myth. But as is science, so is law and again The Bell Curve points out that teaching law is a much a failure as teaching science to make people think scientifically or to follow the letter of the law. Myth must be taught. The myth makers of our society generally appear to understand their responsibility. Evil never triumphs save to never triumph again in a sequel. The forms of legend are not used to implant that which is bad into the mind of the movie viewer. We have dystopic heroes but they are heroes. And the interesting part is that if the "Blofeld" in the book kills the "James Bond" the book does not sell. Why? Evil, the bad guy, is chaos and the triumph of chaos is a failure of the hero and therefore a personal failure of the myth. We can not identify with the success of chaos or failure of the hero. That me can not identify begs the question of why and how we identify. That identification is from myth and myth being the structure with which we deal with reality. We must be taught to ** Continued in the next message... --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (760) To: Bob Klahn 21 Oct 95 00:07:10 Subject: CLINTON'S GUN BAN BK> MG> I direct your attention to Liddel-Hart for the BK> MG> standard text on insurrection. It only requires 3% active BK> MG> and 12% passive support to win. LESS than that won in BK> MG> Vietnam and Afghanistan. BK> Please list all the cases you know of in which a guerrilla BK> army ever defeated the national government without outside BK> assistance. Please list all of the reasons why you believe there would not be foreign assistance to rebels in the US. Note France during the Colonial Revolution and the Civil War. Note the government can't keep hundreds of tons of drugs a year out of the country. Note a man was charged with violating the export laws for building functional AA rockets in his basement and shipping them to Iran -- meaning, how much outside help do you think is needed? BK> 3% active support, 7.5million people. 12% passive support, BK> about 30 million people. Total, 37.5 million people BK> dissaffected enough to join in an armed rebellion against BK> a democratic government, where they still have the vote. BK> Even the Michigan Militia spokespeople only claim a BK> 100,000 or so. That's reassuring to those of us who find BK> them to be suspect of serious whacko tendencies. To be consistent with your method of calculation, you would count the entire family of militiamen (as you have started with the entire US.) That puts the number for the MM closer to 420,000 (at 2.2 children per family + spouse.) But that isn't quite the point. If they are the threat you consider them to be, there were zero of them three years ago. It is difficult to estimate the growth rate with only two data points. And of course the named causes for their coming into existence are Ruby Ridge and Waco. What happens with the next incident? and the next? BK> That also assumes the majority don't care enough to resist BK> the rebellion. A very poor assumption indeed. People like you how dislike guns have already disarmed yourselves and would disarm everyone else. What are you folks going to fight with? Harsh language? And that is a lesson for you. The US explained to Diem how to win, by arming the villages. He refused and kept them disarmed. Just like you are promoting. BK> MG> In both cases the remaining 85% sat it out or were victims BK> MG> as they were disarmed. BK> Which is one reason I favor a Swiss style military, with BK> every able bodied citizen,( I include women), and even the BK> less able bodied, trained and ready to fight. Lacking the formal training we have the same sort of military, it is called the militia. BK> MG> If you are truly concerned about such matters it BK> MG> behooves you to learn about it and be armed. BK> You've just reassured me in my complacency. You shouldn't be. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Trust government as far as you can overthrow it. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (761) To: Rick Palmer 21 Oct 95 00:37:10 Subject: CLINTON'S GUN BAN 01 RP> MG> * Internet: a means of getting pornogrphy and bombs to kids -!- RP> The internet is not accessible without a computer. RP> RP> Got to have a computer? The Internet is not accessible RP> without a communications program. RP> RP> Got to have a communication program? Protect it with a RP> password. RP> RP> If the above won't work, you lost your child long before RP> he/she/it figured out your password! My son is setting up an internet provider service for his company. RP> In short...Your tagline *_must_* be a joke. - ------- C-News courtesy of Berkeley Internet Connections http://www.berkeleyic.com | info@berkeleyic.com - ------- [This satire was originally posted to the nz.general newsgroup in mid-June. -Chris] THE INTERNET A short guide for reporters and journalists Recently there have been a lot of reports about a generally insignificant aspect of the Internet, namely the availability of erotica and other information via computer. The reason for this is quite obvious - this is one of the hottest news topics currently available. People get upset, tempers fray, and Trevor Rogers gets to have his face in the paper again. In short, stories about the evil Internet are "in". This document is intended as a guide for those who would like to join the ranks of the other reporters and journalists who have been so successful in the past when reporting about the Internet. It is intended to save you the hassle of having to reinvent the wheel when you prepare your report, and to familiarise you with certain conventions which need to be followed when reporting on anything to do with the net. You'll be amazed at how simple it is. WHY REPORTING ABOUT THE INTERNET IS USEFUL The Internet provides fascinating subject material for reporters. There's no need to perform any research, you get to cover a "hot topic", and the message is so simple that even politicians can understand it (or at least know how to make political gain from it). - - THE MESSAGE All successful stories on the Internet are based on the following fact: The Internet is a piece of high-technology whose single goal is to get porn and bomb recipes into the hands of children. Don't worry about the details. As will shortly be shown, you may have to adapt this message slightly for your target audience. However, since your average reader won't really know the difference between the Internet, a dialup BBS, and a standalone computer, you don't need to go to any special effort to distinguish between these very different technologies. Generalise. If something applies to one area, it applies to all areas, whether that's physically possible or not. The message is the same, and provided people read/watch/listen to it, you know you've done your job. - - PORN Even while you were still at journalism school, you learned that sex sells. You also know that sex itself doesn't sell, but stories about "comsumers" of sexual material do. This also provides you with an excuse to show pictures of naked women (purely to document what's available, of course) and yet still hold the moral high ground. The Internet, like all communications networks, was designed solely to communicate pornographic images. Of course, the average user has absolutely no idea how to do this, or how to perform the complex decoding and image manipulation necessary to view these images. As a reporter, it is your duty to inform the public on how this is done. Our moral guardians will be appalled at how easily you can get access to the information, anyone with a computer will be busy trying to duplicate your feat, and everyone else will be too busy staring at the pictures to do anything else. Make porn the main theme of your story. If you're doing a story on the Usenet, pick something with the name "sex" in it (even if it's a sexual abuse counselling service - if it has "sex" in the name it's got to be bad), and concentrate exclusively on that. Ignore the fact that there are over 11,000 other interest areas available on the Usenet. Don't even waste your time with them - all people ever talk about there is books, films, art, hobbies, cars, health, politics, financial issues, current events, religion, literature, and so on. Who on earth would read a story about that? Concentrate only on the stuff which pulls in the readers/viewers. Concentrate on porn. - - HIGH TECH Virtually any journalist will know that the majority of the population are somewhat technophobic. If you want to hold the readers attention, you can't go wrong when you use this fact to your advantage. Let's take a simple example: An American, a Japanese, and a New Zealander have a new technology explained to them. The American says "Great, we can ** Continued in the next message... --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (762) To: Michael Pilon 21 Oct 95 00:39:10 Subject: IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONT MP> MG> Would you be the first to point out just who besides Linda MP> MG> Thompson is talking conspiracy? MP> From what I hear on the PATRIOT (tm) radio network there MP> are people from the ]Tripartate comission, CFR , MP> Bilderbergs, UN, etc. All a part of a conspiracy which MP> would be a world first because even Robinson Carusoe and MP> Friday couldn't get along, imagine a world wide plot. Golly. Shortwave? Noting there were no names, I have another question. What kind of listening group do you think there is for shortwave in the US? I have never in my entire life heard anyone bring up in conversation something they heard on shortwave. MP> MG> What shortwave do you listen to and why? MP> I have been a shortwave listener since I was a kid. It was MP> then that I discovered] an interest in what was over the MP> horizon. In fact I feel it might not be on interest to MP> you. You are the one listening in to the conspiracy nuts. It is not an American thing. That is probably because we have always had privately operated rather than government operated radio stations. We never had to invest in SW equipment to get more than enough radio material. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * 1996 -- We gave 'em hell and we can do it again. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (763) To: Lewis Clark 21 Oct 95 00:57:10 Subject: IDAHO, WACO, NOW MON   01 LC> LC> AD> But more than 80 people, including 17 innocent children, LC> LC> AD> are not alive. And their church home was burned to the LC> LC> AD> ground, as I recall. Maybe you got a different account of LC> LC> AD> what happened? LC> LC> Their home was burned to the ground by the Davidians. It LC> LC> shows what can happen when people make a child molesting LC> LC> gun runner into some kind of religious leader. The people LC> LC> who followed Jim Jones learned a similar lesson. LC> MG> You have evidence of these charges or are you simply LC> MG> repeating the unsubstantiated government story? LC> The evidence has been aired countless times for everyone to LC> see. The only people who are still denying it are the LC> radical right wing fruitcakes who won't let the facts get LC> in the way of their pitiful opinions. I have yet to see any such evidence. Why don't you identify it? I have already discussed what the government claims to have. All the Evidence by Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/18> The FBI did itself a great disservice in the Waco hearing regarding the fire. It only presented a single videotape and one eyewitness to the start of the fire. This was an opportunity to close the question once and for all and this is all they presented from all they have. I just took the opportunity to go over some discussion of the early press releases about the fire. It is disappointing what they did not show to Congress. Perhaps it was the political aims of the Republicans that prevented them from doing so. It is disappointing Schumer did not object. For example, the FBI has videotapes of people actually starting the fire. It is hard to imagine, what with being before Congress and the world watching, that they did not show these videotapes instead of the circling aircraft tape. It certainly would have been a much better evidence as to who started the fire. They also did not mention the two snipers who witnessed Davidians starting the fire. Here were two eye witness snipers with telescopic sights who saw the fires being started and neither were called not testify. Worse yet, they were not even mentioned. What a waste of a good hearing. Now they did put on some audio tape that might relate to starting the fires but they were hours earlier. They failed to present the audio tapes of the fires as they were being started. I just don't understand this at all. And then of course, their star witness, the two men who they announced was their agents who got inside and back out after the fire. Why did they not put these men on the stand? Where are they now? Where is their testimony as to what happened inside? Given this golden opportunity what possible reason could the FBI have had for not presenting such information? But, as I note, they have never bothered presenting it to the public. So what specifically are you talking about that is better than all the above evidence the government has? LC> LC> Testimony indicated that Randy Weaver probably shot his LC> LC> own son. LC> MG> No it did not. It was the opinion of one person. It is LC> MG> the LC> Yes, and that is what the "one person" testified to. What LC> is the difference between testimony and testimony? LC> MG> first time the suggestion has been raised. It is most LC> MG> likely in revenge for the closing argument in his trial LC> MG> suggesting that he was shot by another marshall. LC> You have evidence of this charge? Also Weaver said, and no one has disputed it, that he fired his gun into the air? So how does that get a person shot in the back? Given the distance involved he would have had to have shot nearly straight up for it to have come down that close. Therefore it could not have hit him in the back. He was killed with a 9mm bullet. Weaver fired a rifle. Wrong kind of bullet. Now maybe you have been reading too much of the Warren Commission Report and have come to believe in magic bullets. The rest of us do not. LC> MG> It is further difficult to see how a bullet fired into the LC> MG> air can cause the injury his received unless he was face LC> MG> down at the time. LC> What does THAT mean? How can a shot be fired at an angle that would come down only a few hundred feet away with it being nearly straight up? Therefore it comes nearly straight down. That means to be shot in the back he would have to be face down on the ground. Is that clear enough? LC> LC> AD> murdered in Waco out telling their story before Congress? LC> LC> The four agents who were murdered at Waco by the LC> LC> Davidians. So were the children. No child was killed by LC> LC> anyone except the Davidians. LC> MG> Six Davidians were murdered by the BATF while they were not LC> MG> serving a warrant. LC> No, they were shot while those inside the building were LC> shooting at federal agents. One lesson to be learned is, LC> if you don't want to be shot by federal agents, don't shoot LC> at them. ** Continued in the next message... --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (764) To: All 21 Oct 95 02:41:10 Subject: gunfaq.zip Some time ago I created a FAQ on the 2nd amendment. Many have requested it and gotten it by disk. Now it is available as from ftp://users.aol.com/mgiwer5/gunfaq.zip --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Only the FBI could lose a front door. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (765) To: Linda Terrell 21 Oct 95 04:52:10 Subject: Irs sovereignty LT> MG> LT> It is NOT Clinton's IRS. The IRS belongs to nobody, it LT> MG> LT> is its own nation and its own law. Even the President LT> MG> LT> can't control it. LT> MG> You mean LBJ and Nixon could do what Clinton can not? LT> Well now, that is surely talking apples and oranges. Ma'am, the accomplishments of LBJ and Nixon are rather well documented. There has been no law change in the interim that I am aware of. So why can not Clinton do the same thing? --- * RM 1.3 01261 * A UN acting against Bosnia can act against the US.Power=free --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (766) To: Michael Pilon 21 Oct 95 04:54:10 Subject: MICHAEL NEW - A REAL MP> MP> No one really takes royalty seriously here but it beats MP> MP> any MP> alternatives I have read about. MP> MG> You have no honor. MP> I never realized that you held Royalty in such esteem Matt. I never took an oath to any royalty. MP> For this I apologize Incidently isn't telling someone he MP> has no honour akin to calling him a liar ? Lester must MP> decide. I refer to your own words in that regard. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * History is what happened not what you think about what happe --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (767) To: Melissa Just 21 Oct 95 04:55:10 Subject: religious bigotry MJ> > MJ> I don't see this as bigotry, it's a fact. The separation of MJ> > MJ> church and state is being challenged and since we live in a MJ> > MJ> primarily Christian society few see anything wrong with MJ> > I am showing you trashing Christians as acceptable while MJ> > trashing Jews is not. Trash them all or none of them. MJ> But Christians trash other Christians all the time! People MJ> trash other people all the time. It's human nature, MJ> unfortunately. Though I agree with you that trashing people MJ> period is unacceptable. But it is so "legal" to trash Christians. I found one person who claimed I was antisemitic because I did not speak nice about the Jewish religion on the HOLYSMOKE conference. He was and is still heavy into anti-christian bigotry. As a religion they are all shit. And besides, we have found their idols. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * It is better to be a hammer than a nail. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (768) To: Gary Rimar 21 Oct 95 05:00:10 Subject: religious bigotry GR> MG> But I was talking acceptability. For example, it is GR> MG> clearly permissible without raising an eyebrow to say the GR> MG> religious right controls the Republican Party despite the GR> MG> complete absence of evidence of control. GR> Maybe it is all coincidental. Still, some have noticed GR> that the moderate Republicans have dropped away from party GR> prominence, and everyone these days seems to be talking GR> about issues that parody the Christian Coalition (who, BTW, GR> won't remove me, a bisexual Jew, from their membership and GR> mailing list (and I've asked them to do so three times!)). What coincidence are you talking about? You may remember the "school prayer" amendment Reagan promised and gave exactly ONE speech supporting? Are you talking about the currently offered "moment of silence" legislation? That is the sum and substance of 15 years of everything the "christian right" has gotten from the Reps. GR> When most candidates run on a "no abortions" platform, I GR> start to wonder. I don't think that the Republican party GR> is that united on the abortion issue. I heard about a GR> survey (on "All_Things_Considered") that states that the GR> Republicans aren't united on the abortion issue. Still, GR> you won't get that from the candidates. There are a lot of reasons to be against abortion that are not Christian. Even atheists can be against it on grounds of taste if nothing else. But what I said was, that despite the positions of the candidates, they give nothing to the CR. Christian Right = Attractive Nuisance Their votes are attractive, they are nuisance. GR> MG> With a similar lack of evidence, claim liberal jews control GR> MG> the media and take notes on the differences in the GR> MG> response. GR> The response is "aw geez, they're saying that again." GR> People say this all of the time about the Jews (and we GR> control the banks, and the insurance companies, and even GR> though we weren't in this country at the time we ran the GR> slave trade, and blah blah blah blah blah!). It all GR> depends on who is doing the stating and who is doing the GR> reacting. But stating one gets the bigot label, the other is accepted wisdom, as in Screwy Louie's pronouncements. GR> Gary (no group has a monopoly on bigotry, or a response GR> to it) Rimar Is the pronunciation of your name anything like on Red Dwarf? --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer, the jack booted thug of cyberspace. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (769) To: Michael Pilon 21 Oct 95 05:09:10 Subject: UP IN SMOKE !!!!! MP> MG> Any rational government would promote smoking. Any MP> MG> government against it based upon costs is lying. MP> Actually in an accounting sense you are right. It raises MP> tax money, decreases the medical load. But the one flaw is MP> that death from smpke related diseases is a slow lingering MP> process and that costs a lot. That is where you err. It is one of the quickest forms of cancer. If you live long enough, you will get some form of cancer. Most all the rest take longer than lung cancer. And compare the 6-12 months of whatever treatment for lung cancer to up to a decade of nursing home care for something like Altzheimer's. And then when the Altzheimer's type in the nursing home gets some other disease (and at that age usually one named after a person) they are treated for it in addition so they can continue to live out their life as a vegetable. Look up some real numbers. Compare dying ten years earlier and more quickly from lung cancer to an additional ten years of life with all the ten years of diseases and the usually lingering terminal disease. Then, look up the rest of the smoking related diseases, such as heart attack and stroke with their higher likelihood of being immediately or with a couple weeks fatal. And those are the majority of the related deaths. MP> MG> I am only pointing out that you have to send armed people MP> MG> to confiscate guns. That they are armed is an invitation MP> MG> to a confrontation. The collectors will start dying. MP> David Koresh and his merry band of followers ( Patriot MP> martyrs shurely) proved that. So far you are the only one MP> to point out this down side of the right to collect and MP> bear gun-toys .What can it all mean ? They lost eight total, the BATF lost four. It means, the native Americans in Canada finally armed themselves and you folks stopped pushing them around. It means, a first generation American of Quebec ancestry goes back to Canada for a government meeting and remarks if his family had stayed there would be no way he could have been at that meeting. MP> MG> * RM 1.3 01261 * Deny guns and deny the right to self defense. MP> LA Saturday night. An NRA wet dream ! The Saturday Night Special comes from a racist tune Niggertown Saturday Night, which is where the name came from. The racist Senator Metzenbaum has since retired. Farakhan is hardly doing more than getting even. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * The perimeter can't be controlled.L. Thompson is coming.Reno --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (770) To: Loralie Freeman 21 Oct 95 05:24:10 Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!! LF> MG> It seems rather you are missing the point. Doing LF> MG> everything we can right now, it is still less in average LF> MG> lifetime medical costs for smokers than nonsmokers. LF> No, not missing the point. Just looking a slightly LF> different point (where's Nillson when you need him!) of LF> view than you are. As long as you agree there is no argument against smoking to reduce medical costs, we are in agreement. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Urban renewal, proof old money owns downtown property. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (771) To: Patrick Corcoran 21 Oct 95 05:25:10 Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!! PC> MG> Excuse me. Can you point to any evidence showing any PC> MG> difference between age of first use of tobacco, alcohol and PC> MG> marijuana? PC> I didn't address alcohol or marijuana. I stated that PC> selling tobacco to minors is NOT a victimless crime. Then why is it not a crime for a minor to buy tobacco? or to misrepresent age? or to possess tobacco? or to have it in their urine or blood? Who is committing the crime? The seller or the user? PC> MG> The tobacco police should be taking away the licenses of PC> MG> drug dealers. It is a sign of a very, very misplaced PC> MG> priority in our society to be making an issue of something PC> MG> so trivial. PC> I'm definitely not going to argue that people selling ANY PC> contraband to minors ought not to be prosecuted. And so should the person committing fraud upon the merchant. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * A strong back is a terrible thing to waste. --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■» From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate - (772) To: David Ingram 21 Oct 95 05:28:10 Subject: X-ians? DI> MG> The police, folks who have looked all over the country DI> MG> and never found a case of it, despite reports of it. DI> Do you want to make a little bet? If I can produce one DI> case where a police department said that Satanism was DI> behind a crime, would you admit that it exists? I have no idea what your bet might consist of but I am interesting in reading what you have. DI> MG> There are all stripes of whackos around. There are DI> MG> people who will believe anything. DI> And that is why you cannot say that there is not a whacko DI> who would kill someone in the name of satan. DI> By the way, you should read some of the writings of Charles DI> Manson, they are quite interesting. Right. Satanism exists. Ritual sacrifice, dogs living with cats, real old testament stuff. --- * RM 1.3 01261 * Paralegal? What is your typing speed? --- FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x] * Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50) SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101 «■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»«■»

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.