From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Wed Nov  6 15:07:57 PST 1996
Article: 109943 of news.admin.net-abuse.misc
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!news.sgi.com!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: news.admin.net-abuse.misc
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Sun, 03 Nov 1996 17:21:44 GMT
Lines: 148
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <327cd461.4686222@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk> <55dqh0$klm@Networking.Stanford.EDU>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227

rcgraves@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:

>redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland, or Richard Marus, or
>whatever he's calling himself today) writes:
>
>>Now, I do not know Mr Giwer,
>
>Oh, come now Fergus, or Richard, or whatever, methinks you doth protest
>too much. 

I DOTH, he she or it DOTH protest. THOU DOST protest. 
 
Anyway, I repeat I do NOT know Matt Giwer. I know OF Matt Giwer - in
this group. He lives in Florida. I live in Britain and we have never
met.
You read too much into the "Richard Marus" mistake. The computer had
been previously used by him and I neglected to notice the change of
user name. Remember, it is the signature of a letter or article which
is important. To labour the point, if you had a letter from Bill Gates
on Microsoft paper, would you reply to him by name or write to "Dear
Mr Microsoft or whatever"? I have to dismiss this as being all very
silly. Anyway, I preferred it when you called me Nimrod - and that
didn't appear ANYWHERE in my posting, so it seems that you'll do
whatever you want! Never mind, noblesse oblige - carry on.

>To familiarize yourself with Mr. Giwer again, you can refer to
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
> http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse

No point, I can see no harm done by him. Maybe it is British culture
that enables us to tolerate such trivial matters as you and others are
being so hysterical about.

>>but I hereby make it publicly known that
>>if necessary, in the interests of free speech, if he so wishes, his
>>postings can be posted using my account here in the UK,  or that of
>>friends of mine in Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Italy. He will
>>speak.
>
>Why yes, Richard, or Fergus, or whatever, 
(Fergus - look at the signature please). 
>of course he will. No one here
>has ever disparaged his right to speak, either under his own name or under
>his pseudonym. 
They have, as you well know - otherwise, why are they complaining to
his ISP?
>I have repeatedly offered to teach him how to use anonymous
>remailers so that he can post under a stable, secure pseudonym.

Why? His real name or an alias, it is of no real importance.

>But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
>abusive and dishonest. 
Of course it is not. It is so blatant, and he must SURELY know it,
that it cannot be either. A minor form of ragging I grant you, but
nothing more. You are once again being hysterical. He uses his OWN sig
file at the end of the message. He writes in his normal manner. The
headers are jokes, misspelled. Only a true idiot could believe either
that it is a real attempt to forge or that it is abusive. Calm down,
the man identified himself clearly. No wonder you all go around
shooting each other if you take such things seriously.

>Now, he has every right to be abusive and dishonest
>in his words; a casual look at alt.revisionism, and we all know that
>you've taken more than a casual look,
Yes, I have kept my eye on this group for the last four months, if
that is what you mean, and thank goodness, I have learned a lot. But,
who is this "We all"? Is this mere histrionics on your part, or are
you talking of some "Group" of people?

> will turn up content far more
>objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
>you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
>quick succession for doing so. 

I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
him. The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
because of all that he wrote. They would hardly present the "good"
things that he wrote would they?

>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.

"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness. I can
understand blandness in a group where old ladies discuss embroidery
patterns. In a group such as this, the debates MUST lead to
hot-blooded interchanges, name calling and general verbal abuse. I
have seen far, far worse written by Nizcorites and their acolytes than
anything written by Mr Giwer. So many accusations of masturbation,
fornication, defecation, drunkenness, drug-taking, mental stability
and  penile size and general foul language aimed at some of those who,
like me, are here seeking Truth. 

>This group was created for the express purpose of hosting Holocaust denial
>and neo-Nazi activism in an appropriate forum. 
I have no knowledge of why the group was set up, but I have yet to see
any "neo-Nazi activism". How is it defined, so that I can look out for
it?. Saying that someone disagreed with what a Jew says is not good
enough.
>The expression of such
>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>forgery, 
No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
jokes.

>spamming, 
 Means posting an IDENTICAL message to more than five groups. So I
have been led to believe. I have no knowledge of him doing this. 

>and mail-bombing 
The one and only "mail bombing" seems to have been a reply to a
request by someone. Again, only the parties involved know the truth of
this matter, not you, not me.

>are raising concern is that he happens
>to support the Nazi point of view.

So, the Nazis questioned the figures and causes of death of "The
Holocaust"? According to you they did it, they wouldn't have been
questioning it.

>He's more than welcome to post through c2.net, too, provided that he
>agrees to abide by content-neutral standards of netiquette. He is
>certainly not required to post under his own name, but a stable pseudonym,
>or an identifiable range of pseudonyms (as used by Dr. Dmitri Vulis),
>seems a reasonable thing to ask.
It all amounts to the same thing, whatever he calls himself is
irrelevant, the words he utters will be the same. 
Calm down Rich, worse things happen at sea don't you know, put your
six-shooter back in its pouch and chew a bit of tobacco. Mosey on down
to the saloon and have three fingers of old red eye. Make you feel
better.

>-rich

Fergus 
Repeat,
Fergus.
(Get the idea?)



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Fri Nov  8 10:58:20 PST 1996
Article: 78811 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!hookup!paladin.american.edu!02-newsfeed.univie.ac.at!newsfeed.uk.ibm.net!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,fl.general,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Wed, 06 Nov 1996 00:47:40 GMT
Lines: 193
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:89562 alt.revisionism:78811

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>, redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk
>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
>> schwartz@infinet.com (Sara the Prefect) wrote:
>                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>added/edited by Mr. McClelland, trying to make it look as if I have this on
>my header.

>This shows that Mr. McClelland, for all his "outrage," is guilt of the very
>same thing as Mr. Giwer. Forgery. Plain and simple.

Highty-tightly, high and mighty Miss!
Forgery:
"The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
			OED.

Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not  constitute forgery. It is not
your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
uterus rather than her brain.

>> Miss Prefect wrote all the stuff below my comments - showing how she
>> had been trying to get Mr Giwer censored, and banned from his new ISP.
>> My comment.
>
>The handle is "Perrrfect," and your statement is absolutely incorrect. What
>I did was to report a forgery to an ISP. A completely reasonable act by a
>concerned Netizen.

For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer. You did not "report a
forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
judge by. Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net. I think
that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
whom will you report yourself?
>> 
>> Well Miss Prrefect, you certainly live up to your title. Are you in
>> "The land of the free - the home of the brave?" Do you accept the idea
>> of free speech? 
>
>The handle is "Perrrfect,"

To everyone else in the world you may be called Perrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
But to me, you will always be "Prefect".

> and yes, I do. But they taught us in 3rd grade
>here in America that freedom doesn't come without responsibility for ones'
>actions. Don't they teach you that in England anymore? Or did you go to an
>anarchist school?
They never did teach such things in England, probably because it is
instinctive. Nor do we put hand on heart and swear allegiance to a
flag, (though the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown of
course). 
I went to a school where we sorted out our own problems. It is not the
done thing to go whimpering and telling tales to the teachers. In
fact, when I was at school, you would be looked down upon by any
teacher for so doing, as you would be by all the other pupils.

>> It is clear that you do not. But to go as far as you
>> have, sneakily whining to a man's ISP behind his back. Aren't you
>> ashamed of yourself? What you have done is so low, so very low, and
>> despicable. He was only speaking his mind on usenet, not causing
>> actual bodily harm. 
>
>As you quoted my e-mail to gate.net, it's quite plain that I was not
>whining. Merely alerting an ISP to a known liar and forger.

Why should they care a damn - as long as he pays his bill? It would
only be repeated aggravation by you and others would make them do
anything. It would be to get rid of you and your whining that they
would do anything, not because of him. After all, how would they know
what he was doing without you yelping round their ankles.

>Behind his back? Not at all, Mr. McClelland. I made it very clear IN PUBLIC
>that I would forward all Mr. Giwer's forgeries to his ISP. So you've lied
>again.

Not "again", as I have disproved the "first" there cannot be an
"again". However, you did NOT "forward all his forgeries" to his ISP,
you wrote a nasty letter with a sample. Not the same thing at all.
However, had you done something that you have previously said that you
were going to do, that would not make me a liar.


>What I did was despicable? Really? What about changing someone's header? Is
>THAT despicable?
No.

>> People like you stagger me with their
>> vindictiveness that is aimed at all who don't crawl to them. Your
>> slimey actions make me want to puke over you, you really are so vile
>> that I cannot think of words to describe your repulsiveness. 
>
>
>Well, the feeling is certainly mutual, Mr. McClelland, and I don't have to
>resort to name-calling to make my point.

I didn't call you names, merely told you my visceral response to you.
Please read more carefully in future. 

>> Tell me,
>> do you think that you behave in the way that Jews in Germany did in
>> the 1930's and 1940's. It would explain a lot.
> 
>Are you implying that gassing is an appropriate method to deal with people
>who notify others of law-breakers?
I do not think so, but, as you well know, there are many that do. 

> Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
>sheet is showing.
I don't know what you mean, In England we sleep on sheets, please
elucidate.

>> I try very hard to mentally put myself in your position, to think the
>> way you do and understand the behaviour of you and others like you. I
>> fail, because I haven't the requisite viciousness and because I know
>> what would happen to me if I did act "your way". 
>
>No, Mr. McClelland. You fail, because you're as morally corrupt as Mr. Giwer.
I don't know your morals, nor Mr Giwer's, and you cannot know mine.
Therefore, I derive nothing from this fatuous remark.
>
>I really do fear for
>> the well-being of people who act the way that you do. For I have
>> observed that such actions provoke nasty reactions. It has happened
>> before many times to elitist, arrogant, greedy, cruel groups who find
>> themselves in an advantageous postion. They get swatted. The Ebo
>> tribe, who were tall, had their legs chopped off at the knee by the
>> Tutsis. Did they deserve it? Of course not, but human nature dictates
>> that these things happen. 
>
>What do the Ebo and Tutsis have to do with Mr. Giwer forging headers? 

Nothing

>You really amaze me, Mr. McClelland. Since there is no defense for Mr. Giwer's
>action, you drag African tribes into the discussion.
No. The tribes are related to your actions. Read again. It is an
analogy.

>> Now, I do not know Mr Giwer, but I hereby make it publicly known that
>> if necessary, in the interests of free speech, if he so wishes, his
>> postings can be posted using my account here in the UK,  or that of
>> friends of mine in Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Italy. He will
>> speak.
>> 
>
>Mr. McClelland openly acknowledges his boot-licking of Matt Giwer's
>law-breaking.
LAW???? What law? you mean that you have a law in America to cover
altering headers on the internet? What is the usual sentence - is it a
criminal or a civil offence? Most interesting.
 
>Thanks for the acknowledgement. Now, when you post Mr. Giwer's lies, which
>name will he use? And will you allow him to post as "Ken McVay" or "Yale
>Edeiken"?
In those circumstances I would have no say in the matter. Mr Giwer
would say his own things. It would not be for me, as a relay, to say
anything. Nor would I think it morally correct. 

>Sara
>
>-- 
>"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
>                 Samuel Butler

>From  all that I see above you certainly DO mind lying, and you Madam
are hopelessly inaccurate.


Fergus McClelland

"Alles ist endet..."







From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Fri Nov  8 10:58:21 PST 1996
Article: 78895 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!mr.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Fri, 08 Nov 1996 16:37:30 GMT
Lines: 237
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <3283539b.217744@pubnews.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:89685 alt.revisionism:78895

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk>, redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk
>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
>
>> Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
>> misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not  constitute forgery. It is not
>> your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
>> menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
>> harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
>> uterus rather than her brain.
>> 
>
>Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
>answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
>speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
>with her uterus" stuff. 
> 
>It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
>
So, you do accept that I was not "forging" your name.
>
>> For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
>> what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
>> intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer. 
>
>I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
>"reporting a forgery."
I repeat here from my last message a bit you removed:
FORGERY:
"The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
			OED.
Alow me to pursue this point. 
If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
tender. 
So, you did NOT "report a forgery". You may have your own definition
of forgery, but I can only go by the dictionary which substantially
disagrees with you.

>> You did not "report a
>> forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
>> mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
>> judge by. 
>
>Yes, you do, yet you continue to lie about them.

Reading what you wrote - and quoting it - and giving an opinion does
not constitute a lie.
>
>> Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
>> was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
>> termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
>> point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
>> Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
>> priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net.
>
>1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
>point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?

This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you.  However, it
seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
will reject him for a quiet life. 

>2. E-mail from system administartors is NOT, IMO, private.
You should consider whether your opinion defines facts. It is this
Prefect attitude that you are always in the right. Well, Madam, I say
that you are wrong. 
If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
that "he had been warned".
Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
private.
 
>3. There was absolutely no "priviledged" information in Ms. Israels' letter
>to me. Another lie.

I disagree, see above, therefore not a lie. By the way, do you have
another definition of lie of which I am not aware? You seem to bandy
the word about so promiscuously and in all the wrong places so as to
destroy its true meaning. Very confusing.

>> I think
>> that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
>> like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
>> whom will you report yourself?
>
>My ISP is quite familiar with me and the actions I have taken. *I* informed
>them myself. And unlike Mr. Giwer, I have had the same ISP for 3 years.
I wonder how long you would last if many people ganged up on you?
There are many things that you have said in this group which could be
used against you - review your previous postings carefully and you
will see what I mean. I don't think that you would like me to repeat
them here en bloc. 
>
>> To everyone else in the world you may be called Perrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
>> But to me, you will always be "Prefect".
>
>Yes, back to the name-calling. When in doubt, revert to that, eh?

Well not really, I was only saying how I think of you. If your name
was Monica, I would think of you as Monica The Monitor.

>> 
>> > and yes, I do. But they taught us in 3rd grade
>> >here in America that freedom doesn't come without responsibility for ones'
>> >actions. Don't they teach you that in England anymore? Or did you go to an
>> >anarchist school?
>> They never did teach such things in England, probably because it is
>> instinctive. Nor do we put hand on heart and swear allegiance to a
>> flag, (though the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown of
>> course). 
>
>Well that makes sense. Since you never learned about personal
>responsibility for the consequences of your actions, I suppose you can be
>forgiven for defending Mr. Giwer.
>
>Might I suggest a remedial course?

I'm sorry Monica, I should have expounded. We were taught in such a
way as to be imbued with a sense of fair play and tolerance. There was
an old English expression, "Playing with a straight bat", which
encompassed the ideal. 

>[snip]
>
>
>> Why should they care a damn - as long as he pays his bill? It would
>> only be repeated aggravation by you and others would make them do
>> anything. It would be to get rid of you and your whining that they
>> would do anything, not because of him. After all, how would they know
>> what he was doing without you yelping round their ankles.
>> 
>
>Why should they care? Ask them! There *is* something called a user's
>agreement, and Mr. Giwer was clearly getting close to violating it. THAT'S
>WHY HE WAS WARNED.

According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
getting close to violating..."  only that "he had been warned."  I
reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
stop your wild self-serving inventions. 
>
>> Not "again", as I have disproved the "first" there cannot be an
>> "again". However, you did NOT "forward all his forgeries" to his ISP,
>> you wrote a nasty letter with a sample.
>
>How do you know I didn't forward all his forgeries? In fact, I did. And I
>will continue to do so, when he forges the names of others. That is MY
>RIGHT, Mr. McClelland.
Refer to the OED definition listed above, not your whim as to what the
word should mean. As he has not forged, you can not have forwarded his
forgeries to Gate Net. I might be prepared to accept that you had
forwarded messages that you did not like to his ISP, but forgeries
they were not. 

>> I didn't call you names, merely told you my visceral response to you.
>> Please read more carefully in future. 
>
>"Miss Prefect" certainly sounds like name-calling to me.
Merely a response to how you were behaving.
>"a screeching, haggard old harriden" sounds like name-calling to me.
>"a decayed strumpet" sounds like name-calling to me.
>"a pubescent girl thinking with her uterus rather than her brain" sounds
>like name-calling to me.
Again I have to refer to the comments of Hardwire. He noticed, as you
did not, because he reads more carefully than you, that I said that
you "put me in mind of" these types. You still do. Your words dictate
my impression of you dear heart - what else have I got to go on? 

>> >What do the Ebo and Tutsis have to do with Mr. Giwer forging headers? 
>> 
>> Nothing
>> 
>> >You really amaze me, Mr. McClelland. Since there is no defense for Mr.
>Giwer's
>> >action, you drag African tribes into the discussion.
>> No. The tribes are related to your actions. Read again. It is an
>> analogy.
>> 
>
>Hmmm. They have nothing to do with it, then they are "related to your actions."
No, they have nothing to do with MR GIWER'S actions. They have to do
with YOUR actions, (and people like you), your general demeanour as
revealed so succinctly by your hysterical, vituperative vendetta
against Mr Giwer and your wild oubursts against me when your actions
are questioned. There are groups of people in this world who are not
liked. The reason they are not liked is often because they are
unpleasant. You, are being unpleasant.

>
>[snip]
>
>> >Thanks for the acknowledgement. Now, when you post Mr. Giwer's lies, which
>> >name will he use? And will you allow him to post as "Ken McVay" or "Yale
>> >Edeiken"?
>> In those circumstances I would have no say in the matter. Mr Giwer
>> would say his own things. It would not be for me, as a relay, to say
>> anything. Nor would I think it morally correct. 
>> 
>Then you have completely validated my point. Thank you, Mr. McClelland.

I have validated nothing - I would merely be a conduit for free
speech. And of course, a conduit does not edit - otherwise, the speech
would not be free. 



Fergus McClelland



>Sara
>
>-- 
>"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
>                 Samuel Butler
>



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Sat Nov  9 05:38:25 PST 1996
Article: 78949 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 00:16:44 GMT
Lines: 241
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <847498589.4561.0@perdrix.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:89756 alt.revisionism:78949

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk>, redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk
>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
>
>> Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
>> misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not  constitute forgery. It is not
>> your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
>> menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
>> harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
>> uterus rather than her brain.
>> 
>
>Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
>answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
>speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
>with her uterus" stuff. 
> 
>It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
>
So, you do accept that I was not "forging" your name.
>
>> For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
>> what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
>> intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer. 
>
>I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
>"reporting a forgery."
I repeat here from my last message a bit you removed:
FORGERY:
"The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
			OED.
Alow me to pursue this point. 
If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
tender. 
So, you did NOT "report a forgery". You may have your own definition
of forgery, but I can only go by the dictionary which substantially
disagrees with you.

>> You did not "report a
>> forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
>> mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
>> judge by. 
>
>Yes, you do, yet you continue to lie about them.

Reading what you wrote - and quoting it - and giving an opinion does
not constitute a lie.
>
>> Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
>> was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
>> termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
>> point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
>> Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
>> priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net.
>
>1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
>point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?

This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you.  However, it
seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
will reject him for a quiet life. 

>2. E-mail from system administartors is NOT, IMO, private.
You should consider whether your opinion defines facts. It is this
Prefect attitude that you are always in the right. Well, Madam, I say
that you are wrong. 
If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
that "he had been warned".
Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
private.
 
>3. There was absolutely no "priviledged" information in Ms. Israels' letter
>to me. Another lie.

I disagree, see above, therefore not a lie. By the way, do you have
another definition of lie of which I am not aware? You seem to bandy
the word about so promiscuously and in all the wrong places so as to
destroy its true meaning. Very confusing.

>> I think
>> that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
>> like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
>> whom will you report yourself?
>
>My ISP is quite familiar with me and the actions I have taken. *I* informed
>them myself. And unlike Mr. Giwer, I have had the same ISP for 3 years.
I wonder how long you would last if many people ganged up on you?
There are many things that you have said in this group which could be
used against you - review your previous postings carefully and you
will see what I mean. I don't think that you would like me to repeat
them here en bloc. 
>
>> To everyone else in the world you may be called Perrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
>> But to me, you will always be "Prefect".
>
>Yes, back to the name-calling. When in doubt, revert to that, eh?

Well not really, I was only saying how I think of you. If your name
was Monica, I would think of you as Monica The Monitor.

>> 
>> > and yes, I do. But they taught us in 3rd grade
>> >here in America that freedom doesn't come without responsibility for ones'
>> >actions. Don't they teach you that in England anymore? Or did you go to an
>> >anarchist school?
>> They never did teach such things in England, probably because it is
>> instinctive. Nor do we put hand on heart and swear allegiance to a
>> flag, (though the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown of
>> course). 
>
>Well that makes sense. Since you never learned about personal
>responsibility for the consequences of your actions, I suppose you can be
>forgiven for defending Mr. Giwer.
>
>Might I suggest a remedial course?

I'm sorry Monica, I should have expounded. We were taught in such a
way as to be imbued with a sense of fair play and tolerance. There was
an old English expression, "Playing with a straight bat", which
encompassed the ideal. 

>[snip]
>
>
>> Why should they care a damn - as long as he pays his bill? It would
>> only be repeated aggravation by you and others would make them do
>> anything. It would be to get rid of you and your whining that they
>> would do anything, not because of him. After all, how would they know
>> what he was doing without you yelping round their ankles.
>> 
>
>Why should they care? Ask them! There *is* something called a user's
>agreement, and Mr. Giwer was clearly getting close to violating it. THAT'S
>WHY HE WAS WARNED.

According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
getting close to violating..."  only that "he had been warned."  I
reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
stop your wild self-serving inventions. 
>
>> Not "again", as I have disproved the "first" there cannot be an
>> "again". However, you did NOT "forward all his forgeries" to his ISP,
>> you wrote a nasty letter with a sample.
>
>How do you know I didn't forward all his forgeries? In fact, I did. And I
>will continue to do so, when he forges the names of others. That is MY
>RIGHT, Mr. McClelland.
Refer to the OED definition listed above, not your whim as to what the
word should mean. As he has not forged, you can not have forwarded his
forgeries to Gate Net. I might be prepared to accept that you had
forwarded messages that you did not like to his ISP, but forgeries
they were not. 

>> I didn't call you names, merely told you my visceral response to you.
>> Please read more carefully in future. 
>
>"Miss Prefect" certainly sounds like name-calling to me.
Merely a response to how you were behaving.
>"a screeching, haggard old harriden" sounds like name-calling to me.
>"a decayed strumpet" sounds like name-calling to me.
>"a pubescent girl thinking with her uterus rather than her brain" sounds
>like name-calling to me.
Again I have to refer to the comments of Hardwire. He noticed, as you
did not, because he reads more carefully than you, that I said that
you "put me in mind of" these types. You still do. Your words dictate
my impression of you dear heart - what else have I got to go on? 

>> >What do the Ebo and Tutsis have to do with Mr. Giwer forging headers? 
>> 
>> Nothing
>> 
>> >You really amaze me, Mr. McClelland. Since there is no defense for Mr.
>Giwer's
>> >action, you drag African tribes into the discussion.
>> No. The tribes are related to your actions. Read again. It is an
>> analogy.
>> 
>
>Hmmm. They have nothing to do with it, then they are "related to your actions."
No, they have nothing to do with MR GIWER'S actions. They have to do
with YOUR actions, (and people like you), your general demeanour as
revealed so succinctly by your hysterical, vituperative vendetta
against Mr Giwer and your wild oubursts against me when your actions
are questioned. There are groups of people in this world who are not
liked. The reason they are not liked is often because they are
unpleasant. You, are being unpleasant.

>
>[snip]
>
>> >Thanks for the acknowledgement. Now, when you post Mr. Giwer's lies, which
>> >name will he use? And will you allow him to post as "Ken McVay" or "Yale
>> >Edeiken"?
>> In those circumstances I would have no say in the matter. Mr Giwer
>> would say his own things. It would not be for me, as a relay, to say
>> anything. Nor would I think it morally correct. 
>> 
>Then you have completely validated my point. Thank you, Mr. McClelland.

I have validated nothing - I would merely be a conduit for free
speech. And of course, a conduit does not edit - otherwise, the speech
would not be free. 



Fergus McClelland



>Sara
>
>-- 
>"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
>                 Samuel Butler
>


Posted through two servers as one not reliable at present - being
updated and posting may get lost. Apologies if duplicated.



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Sun Nov 10 06:54:02 PST 1996
Article: 79034 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!wesley.videotron.net!news.sprintlink.net!news-pen-14.sprintlink.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What Kind of Name is Fergus? was Virus Information from HipCat - this is NOT a virus!
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 1996 23:17:16 GMT
Lines: 42
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <327fcac0.9865002@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <32792B5F.6707@vms1.gmu.edu> <55d2dh$5t7@newsfeeder.total.net> <55dsef$frm@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca> <327cd43c.4649334@news.demon.co.uk> <55l9so$6vj@tor-nn1-hb0.netcom.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227

marduk@netcom.ca (Marduk) wrote:

To answer your question in the title - Fergus is an old name, there
were various kings of Scotland of that name, and one of Scotland and
Ireland. There is a place in Ireland called Carrickfergus, named after
a large rock by the Irish sea where King Fergus was reported to have
stepped ashore on his arrival from Scotland. I think I was once told
that Fergus means "bold one", but I'm not sure. And yes, it is a bit
Celtic, as you obviously knew  - going by the first line of your
muddled little response to my posting. There now, aren't you glad you
asked?

And, of course, Fergus is a real name - unlike Marduk, the mythical
Babylonian god. I do find it interesting that a person who takes what
appears to be a very pro-Jewish stand should use Marduk as his play
name, given the Babylonian Captivity story. Almost like calling
yourself Hitler really. 
Curious. 
Especially when you think of how much of Jewish religion is stolen
directly from Babylonian History and fiction:  Moses, Bullrushes, Ten
Commandments given by God at the top of a mountain, Noah, the Flood...
>
>Needless to say, you  chivalrous celtic clod, you don't address the central 
>issue, namely, what relevance does Thoth's living under a totalitarian regime 
>have to do with alt.revisionism? 
The "central issue" was Judit trying to warn everyone of what she
believed was a threat to their coputers - hence the original title of
the thread. Thoth was the Egyptian god of healing so Ipresume you must
mean Toth? Maybe you really failed to see the connection.
Theoretically, people living under WWII German control suffered for
racial reasons. Ken McVay ostensibly speaks for them. Following, and
as a direct result of, the war, soviet Russian control, (equally
totalitarian), was imposed on Eastern European countries. Judit was a
sufferer uner that regime. Therefore... Did you follow that?

>Other than, of course, her thinly disguised 
>attempt to mitigate nazi atrocities against jews with the assertion that the 
>late unlamented hungarian regimes had jews in various government posts.
Fascinating, is that all you saw? I hardly noticed. There I was
thinking that she was complaining about Soviet repression and puppet
governments which happened to contain some Jews. Is this a touch of
the old "criticize any Jew and you must be an anti-semite" thing?


From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Sun Nov 10 06:54:03 PST 1996
Article: 79070 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:06:12 GMT
Lines: 189
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <847587955.17669.0@perdrix.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:90010 alt.revisionism:79070

rakshasa@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:

>Fergus McClelland (redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: FORGERY:
>: "The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
>: especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
>: 			OED.
>: Alow me to pursue this point. 
>: If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
>: spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
>: this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
>: note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
>: tender. 
>
KEVIN PHILAN
>	Meanings are fluid; why don't you go to the OED and look up the
>definitions for "spam" and "flame?"  Ms. Schwartz's usage of the word
>would be recognized as correct by any system administrator I know.  

You clot.
 A meaning is a meaning - by sheer definition of the word meaning.
Perhaps there are many internet system administrators in the world who
know the American internet slang meaning for flame and spam. But so
what? I am talking about the specific meaning of forgery and it cannot
be loosely applied. Interpreting words to suit yourself is dangerous.
A policeman could come up to you in the street and tell you that
something you had done was forgery and therefore arrests you. You
would then want him to use the dictionary meaning of the word and
apply it exactly.  I am not talking about slang words - ask a lawyer
the meaning of "Forgery", he will know precisely the meaning of the
word. As far as I am concerned, if she said forgery I will take it
that she meant forgery, no vague usage applied after the event.

>	Giwer altered his From: line so that it would appear he was
>somebody else.  This _is_ a forgery.  It _is_ a fraudulent imitation of,
>say, Danny Keren's postings or Ken McVay's postings.   Your attempt to
>obfuscate on this issue is pretty typical "denier" behavior.  

No obfuscation, I stand by what I said. Given that the headers of Mr
Giwers posts show Florida, and one ISP and Ken McVay shows Canada and
another ISP it cannot be a forgery. Especially, and very importantly,
as most of the disputed postings include Mr Giwer's long sig. file. 
Miss Schwartz also spoke of these "Called on the internet Forgeries"
as being against "the Law." I took her to mean American Law and asked
whether it was a civil or criminal offence, and asked her for
clarification. She declined to answer so, will you? And please no
"fluid" meaning of the expression "against the Law." Just a simple yes
or no will suffice. Is what Mr Giwer did "Against the Law " in
America, and if so, is it an arrestable offence?

As to 'typical "denier" behaviour', I am not a "denier". I am now an
Unbeliever in the Holocaust Myth [TM], if that is what you mean. That
is thanks to reading this group, thinking about the evidence presented
and seeing the way the various parties present their "facts". I should
add that up to six months ago I accepted the full tale completely
because I was unaware of certain facts which I have since verified for
myself. This, by the way, also applies to various friends of mine,
some of whom have recently been reading this group and others who said
that they had never believed it all anyway, that it never rang true to
them.

KEVIN FILAN
>	(Are you related to Jeff "stumpy" Roberts, btw? He used to go on
>and on about the definition for "deliberate plan of starvation.")

No.


>: So, you did NOT "report a forgery". You may have your own definition
>: of forgery, but I can only go by the dictionary which substantially
>: disagrees with you.


KEVIN PHILAN
>	I can go by those who work as administrators for Internet Service
>Providers.  They agree with Ms. Schwartz.  Of course, you know this -- but
>you just want to continue the argument.

No, I do not "know this" nor would I rely on some menial Internet
person to define a word for me. The idea is too ridiculous to
contemplate. "Ignore Oxford, ignore Cambridge, ignore the OED, Andrew
Mathis of the Bronx works for an ISP and he says that the word pottle
means.....". I won't go on, I think you get the idea.

>
>: This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you.  However, it
>: seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
>: Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
>: Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
>: complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
>: company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
>: will reject him for a quiet life. 
>
>	Ain't capitalism grand?
No, (though I know of none better), but I can't understand why you put
this in.


KEVIN PHILAN
>	Why, may I ask, has no one raised any complaints about Kurt Stele
>or Tom Moran, two posters who have posted anti-Semitic garbage every bit
>as hateful 
That word "hateful" again. Do you really "hate" these people and their
words? REAL hate? That is an extremely strong emotion, or are you just
being fluid with your meanings again? Dislikable, unpleasant, there
are many words that you could more aptly apply, but, as other people
in this group have often pointed out, you use a small group of extreme
words so often that they have lost any impact they may once have had,
and become laughable. It is the predictablility of it that makes it
laughable.

>as anything Giwer ever spewed up.  
How could you know for a fact that "no-one has raised any complaints
about..." these people? You could not. I think what you mean here is
that YOU have not complained about them, but you cannot know if others
have. Your thinking is so wooly that I am not surprised that you are
an "Exterminationist".

KEVIN PHILAN
>Could it be that they're
>abiding by "netiquette" (i.e. commonly accepted standards of behavior on
>Usenet) and as a result, no one bothers them?

You are absurdly insular. We are not all Americans, and different
cultures approach the internet, and all other social interactions in
different ways. "Netiquette" in this context is pretty meaningless.
What you are saying is that they abide by YOUR standard of behaviour
on the Internet, so you have not complained. So what? American
etiquette is well known for being somewhat less than totally polite. I
suggest you visit uk.finance, and watch an argument there. Swearing is
almost unheard of, not because they are prudes but because they are
arguing facts in a civilized way. After that, in your mind, consider
an Italian or Spanish version. In short, international "Netiquette" is
a concept, not a reality. The American way is not that of everybody
else.

>: If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
>: information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
>: However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
>: information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
>: that "he had been warned".

KEVIN PHILAN
>	So take it up with Gate.net, then.  
What? Complain? Like you do? Is there a body that investigates
breaches of "Netiquette" (awful word) ? I wouldn't dream of it. It
might get Miss Israels  the sack, for example, for something so
unimportant. 

>: Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
>: They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
>: If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
>: priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
>: would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
>: private.
>
>	So take it up with Gate.net, then.
See above.

>: According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
>: knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
>: whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
>: money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
>: again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
>: getting close to violating..."  only that "he had been warned."  I
>: reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
>: stop your wild self-serving inventions. 

KEVIN PHILAN
>	Go ahead and start behaving like Mr. Giwer... and watch how long
>you stay on Demon.  Go ahead; flood the newsgroup with 100+ messages a day
>with various forged "From:" lines.
>
>	Go ahead.  I dare you.
Having spoken to many members of staff at my ISP, I have a fair idea
that I would merely receive an e-mailed request to stop overloading
their servers. As to rising to a child's dare, It is not in my nature
to, though I would feel secure with my provider if I did. 


>
>Peace
>Kevin Filan

"Alles was ist endet..."

Fergus McClelland



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Sun Nov 10 06:54:04 PST 1996
Article: 79071 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:09:41 GMT
Lines: 143
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <847634962.358.1@perdrix.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk> <55dqh0$klm@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <327d30de.8680278@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:90015 alt.revisionism:79071

Dene Bebbington  wrote:

Edited slightly, please see original.
>>rcgraves@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:

>>To familiarize yourself with Mr. Giwer again, you can refer to
>>>
>>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>>> http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse
Me:
>>No point, I can see no harm done by him. Maybe it is British culture
>>that enables us to tolerate such trivial matters as you and others are
>>being so hysterical about.
Dene Bebbington: 
>You do not speak for all people in Britain.

No sir, neither do you, nor did I claim to. What a fatuous remark.
However, I do gather from your comment that either you are not
British, though you are in Britain, that you do not associate yourself
with British culture, or that you do not have the British qualities
that I mentioned. 

>>>But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
>>>abusive and dishonest. 

>>Of course it is not. It is so blatant, and he must SURELY know it,
>>that it cannot be either. A minor form of ragging I grant you, but
>>nothing more. You are once again being hysterical. He uses his OWN sig
>>file at the end of the message. He writes in his normal manner. The
>>headers are jokes, misspelled. Only a true idiot could believe either
>>that it is a real attempt to forge or that it is abusive. Calm down,
>>the man identified himself clearly.
Dene Bebbington 
>He was only identified by those aware of him and his silly tactics. When
>he masquerades as other posts (such as Ken McVay) then this is
>unacceptable, and whilst regulars may be wise to his antics, many other
>readers of this newsgroup may not.

This is always the case with newcomers to any group, or, indeed,
newcomers to any walk of life. Newcomers are at a disadvantage
anywhere, it takes but a while for anyone very interested to get to
know. And if they are not very interested they will drift away. Either
way, no harm done.

>>> will turn up content far more
>>>objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
>>>you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
>>>quick succession for doing so. 
>>
>>I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
>>complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
>>If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
>>written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
>>Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
>>him. The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
>>people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
>>because of all that he wrote. They would hardly present the "good"

Dene Bebbington 
>Hardly one sided since they (and I include myself in this) simply used
>Giwer's own posts, that is his own words, when complaining about him.
>That is hardly biased evidence.

Of course it is. You try that in a court of law, presenting only some
of the documents from a bundle and not allowing the jury to see the
rest - see what happens. 
You are one of those mentally puny people who cannot even manage to
fight an argument on the internet without running to complain when you
don't get your own way. You must consider yourself a nothing and a
nobody to have to resort to such measures. I pity anyone with such a
lack of self-conviction, such a knowledge of their own incapacity that
they need to act this way. Can't you even have an argument or two on
the internet without crying and slinking off to whimper your
complaints to somebody bigger than you to do your fighting for you? At
least Mr Giwer has guts - something you obviously lack.
>
>>>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>>>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
>>
>>"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
>>specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness. I can
>>understand blandness in a group where old ladies discuss embroidery
>>patterns.

Dene Bebbington 
>I think that Rich is referring to Netiquette here, his behaviour in
>general (for example, forging) rather than the specific content of his
>posts.

You think, but you don't know. Allow Mr Graves to answer points put to
him if you please. Your thoughts of what he means are of no value.
With regard to "Netiquette" please see my reply to Kevin Filan where I
cover that point.

>>>The expression of such
>>>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>>>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>>>forgery, 
>>No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
>>jokes.
Dene Bebbington 
>Not true.

Facts are not determined by whether or not you say "Not true."  I
suggest that you read "The Green Book", "The White Book" and
"Archbold" before you pontificate so foolishly. These will give you
some idea of County and Supreme Court Practice in this country and how
it defines concepts such as "forgery".

>>>He's more than welcome to post through c2.net, too, provided that he
>>>agrees to abide by content-neutral standards of netiquette. He is
>>>certainly not required to post under his own name, but a stable pseudonym,
>>>or an identifiable range of pseudonyms (as used by Dr. Dmitri Vulis),
>>>seems a reasonable thing to ask.
>>It all amounts to the same thing, whatever he calls himself is
>>irrelevant, the words he utters will be the same. 

Dene Bebbington 
>Only as long as he isn't pretending to be other posters.

This declaimed by the oaf who says that he is not quite decided as to
whether or not people who say they disbelieve in "The Holocaust [TM]"
should be put in gaol. Earlier, you accused me of trying to speak for
the British as a whole, (I think), and here you are stating what
people will be allowed to do on the worldwide Internet. If he expertly
pretended to be other posters - faking his headers and path - how
would you know? Anyway, will you enforce this ban yourself? Will you
go to Mr Giwer and others and personally confront them? I think I will
answer this for you. No you will not. You will go to the big boys and
get them to do your dirty work for you. That is the way of all
cowards.


"alles was ist endet..."


Fergus McClelland

>Dene Bebbington
>
>"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
>



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Sun Nov 10 12:20:39 PST 1996
Article: 89756 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 1996 00:16:44 GMT
Lines: 241
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <847498589.4561.0@perdrix.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:89756 alt.revisionism:78949

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk>, redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk
>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
>
>> Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
>> misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not  constitute forgery. It is not
>> your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
>> menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
>> harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
>> uterus rather than her brain.
>> 
>
>Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
>answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
>speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
>with her uterus" stuff. 
> 
>It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
>
So, you do accept that I was not "forging" your name.
>
>> For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
>> what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
>> intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer. 
>
>I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
>"reporting a forgery."
I repeat here from my last message a bit you removed:
FORGERY:
"The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
			OED.
Alow me to pursue this point. 
If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
tender. 
So, you did NOT "report a forgery". You may have your own definition
of forgery, but I can only go by the dictionary which substantially
disagrees with you.

>> You did not "report a
>> forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
>> mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
>> judge by. 
>
>Yes, you do, yet you continue to lie about them.

Reading what you wrote - and quoting it - and giving an opinion does
not constitute a lie.
>
>> Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
>> was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
>> termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
>> point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
>> Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
>> priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net.
>
>1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
>point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?

This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you.  However, it
seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
will reject him for a quiet life. 

>2. E-mail from system administartors is NOT, IMO, private.
You should consider whether your opinion defines facts. It is this
Prefect attitude that you are always in the right. Well, Madam, I say
that you are wrong. 
If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
that "he had been warned".
Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
private.
 
>3. There was absolutely no "priviledged" information in Ms. Israels' letter
>to me. Another lie.

I disagree, see above, therefore not a lie. By the way, do you have
another definition of lie of which I am not aware? You seem to bandy
the word about so promiscuously and in all the wrong places so as to
destroy its true meaning. Very confusing.

>> I think
>> that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
>> like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
>> whom will you report yourself?
>
>My ISP is quite familiar with me and the actions I have taken. *I* informed
>them myself. And unlike Mr. Giwer, I have had the same ISP for 3 years.
I wonder how long you would last if many people ganged up on you?
There are many things that you have said in this group which could be
used against you - review your previous postings carefully and you
will see what I mean. I don't think that you would like me to repeat
them here en bloc. 
>
>> To everyone else in the world you may be called Perrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
>> But to me, you will always be "Prefect".
>
>Yes, back to the name-calling. When in doubt, revert to that, eh?

Well not really, I was only saying how I think of you. If your name
was Monica, I would think of you as Monica The Monitor.

>> 
>> > and yes, I do. But they taught us in 3rd grade
>> >here in America that freedom doesn't come without responsibility for ones'
>> >actions. Don't they teach you that in England anymore? Or did you go to an
>> >anarchist school?
>> They never did teach such things in England, probably because it is
>> instinctive. Nor do we put hand on heart and swear allegiance to a
>> flag, (though the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown of
>> course). 
>
>Well that makes sense. Since you never learned about personal
>responsibility for the consequences of your actions, I suppose you can be
>forgiven for defending Mr. Giwer.
>
>Might I suggest a remedial course?

I'm sorry Monica, I should have expounded. We were taught in such a
way as to be imbued with a sense of fair play and tolerance. There was
an old English expression, "Playing with a straight bat", which
encompassed the ideal. 

>[snip]
>
>
>> Why should they care a damn - as long as he pays his bill? It would
>> only be repeated aggravation by you and others would make them do
>> anything. It would be to get rid of you and your whining that they
>> would do anything, not because of him. After all, how would they know
>> what he was doing without you yelping round their ankles.
>> 
>
>Why should they care? Ask them! There *is* something called a user's
>agreement, and Mr. Giwer was clearly getting close to violating it. THAT'S
>WHY HE WAS WARNED.

According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
getting close to violating..."  only that "he had been warned."  I
reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
stop your wild self-serving inventions. 
>
>> Not "again", as I have disproved the "first" there cannot be an
>> "again". However, you did NOT "forward all his forgeries" to his ISP,
>> you wrote a nasty letter with a sample.
>
>How do you know I didn't forward all his forgeries? In fact, I did. And I
>will continue to do so, when he forges the names of others. That is MY
>RIGHT, Mr. McClelland.
Refer to the OED definition listed above, not your whim as to what the
word should mean. As he has not forged, you can not have forwarded his
forgeries to Gate Net. I might be prepared to accept that you had
forwarded messages that you did not like to his ISP, but forgeries
they were not. 

>> I didn't call you names, merely told you my visceral response to you.
>> Please read more carefully in future. 
>
>"Miss Prefect" certainly sounds like name-calling to me.
Merely a response to how you were behaving.
>"a screeching, haggard old harriden" sounds like name-calling to me.
>"a decayed strumpet" sounds like name-calling to me.
>"a pubescent girl thinking with her uterus rather than her brain" sounds
>like name-calling to me.
Again I have to refer to the comments of Hardwire. He noticed, as you
did not, because he reads more carefully than you, that I said that
you "put me in mind of" these types. You still do. Your words dictate
my impression of you dear heart - what else have I got to go on? 

>> >What do the Ebo and Tutsis have to do with Mr. Giwer forging headers? 
>> 
>> Nothing
>> 
>> >You really amaze me, Mr. McClelland. Since there is no defense for Mr.
>Giwer's
>> >action, you drag African tribes into the discussion.
>> No. The tribes are related to your actions. Read again. It is an
>> analogy.
>> 
>
>Hmmm. They have nothing to do with it, then they are "related to your actions."
No, they have nothing to do with MR GIWER'S actions. They have to do
with YOUR actions, (and people like you), your general demeanour as
revealed so succinctly by your hysterical, vituperative vendetta
against Mr Giwer and your wild oubursts against me when your actions
are questioned. There are groups of people in this world who are not
liked. The reason they are not liked is often because they are
unpleasant. You, are being unpleasant.

>
>[snip]
>
>> >Thanks for the acknowledgement. Now, when you post Mr. Giwer's lies, which
>> >name will he use? And will you allow him to post as "Ken McVay" or "Yale
>> >Edeiken"?
>> In those circumstances I would have no say in the matter. Mr Giwer
>> would say his own things. It would not be for me, as a relay, to say
>> anything. Nor would I think it morally correct. 
>> 
>Then you have completely validated my point. Thank you, Mr. McClelland.

I have validated nothing - I would merely be a conduit for free
speech. And of course, a conduit does not edit - otherwise, the speech
would not be free. 



Fergus McClelland



>Sara
>
>-- 
>"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
>                 Samuel Butler
>


Posted through two servers as one not reliable at present - being
updated and posting may get lost. Apologies if duplicated.



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Sun Nov 10 12:20:40 PST 1996
Article: 90010 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 01:06:12 GMT
Lines: 189
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <847587955.17669.0@perdrix.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:90010 alt.revisionism:79070

rakshasa@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:

>Fergus McClelland (redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>
>: FORGERY:
>: "The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
>: especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
>: 			OED.
>: Alow me to pursue this point. 
>: If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
>: spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
>: this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
>: note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
>: tender. 
>
KEVIN PHILAN
>	Meanings are fluid; why don't you go to the OED and look up the
>definitions for "spam" and "flame?"  Ms. Schwartz's usage of the word
>would be recognized as correct by any system administrator I know.  

You clot.
 A meaning is a meaning - by sheer definition of the word meaning.
Perhaps there are many internet system administrators in the world who
know the American internet slang meaning for flame and spam. But so
what? I am talking about the specific meaning of forgery and it cannot
be loosely applied. Interpreting words to suit yourself is dangerous.
A policeman could come up to you in the street and tell you that
something you had done was forgery and therefore arrests you. You
would then want him to use the dictionary meaning of the word and
apply it exactly.  I am not talking about slang words - ask a lawyer
the meaning of "Forgery", he will know precisely the meaning of the
word. As far as I am concerned, if she said forgery I will take it
that she meant forgery, no vague usage applied after the event.

>	Giwer altered his From: line so that it would appear he was
>somebody else.  This _is_ a forgery.  It _is_ a fraudulent imitation of,
>say, Danny Keren's postings or Ken McVay's postings.   Your attempt to
>obfuscate on this issue is pretty typical "denier" behavior.  

No obfuscation, I stand by what I said. Given that the headers of Mr
Giwers posts show Florida, and one ISP and Ken McVay shows Canada and
another ISP it cannot be a forgery. Especially, and very importantly,
as most of the disputed postings include Mr Giwer's long sig. file. 
Miss Schwartz also spoke of these "Called on the internet Forgeries"
as being against "the Law." I took her to mean American Law and asked
whether it was a civil or criminal offence, and asked her for
clarification. She declined to answer so, will you? And please no
"fluid" meaning of the expression "against the Law." Just a simple yes
or no will suffice. Is what Mr Giwer did "Against the Law " in
America, and if so, is it an arrestable offence?

As to 'typical "denier" behaviour', I am not a "denier". I am now an
Unbeliever in the Holocaust Myth [TM], if that is what you mean. That
is thanks to reading this group, thinking about the evidence presented
and seeing the way the various parties present their "facts". I should
add that up to six months ago I accepted the full tale completely
because I was unaware of certain facts which I have since verified for
myself. This, by the way, also applies to various friends of mine,
some of whom have recently been reading this group and others who said
that they had never believed it all anyway, that it never rang true to
them.

KEVIN FILAN
>	(Are you related to Jeff "stumpy" Roberts, btw? He used to go on
>and on about the definition for "deliberate plan of starvation.")

No.


>: So, you did NOT "report a forgery". You may have your own definition
>: of forgery, but I can only go by the dictionary which substantially
>: disagrees with you.


KEVIN PHILAN
>	I can go by those who work as administrators for Internet Service
>Providers.  They agree with Ms. Schwartz.  Of course, you know this -- but
>you just want to continue the argument.

No, I do not "know this" nor would I rely on some menial Internet
person to define a word for me. The idea is too ridiculous to
contemplate. "Ignore Oxford, ignore Cambridge, ignore the OED, Andrew
Mathis of the Bronx works for an ISP and he says that the word pottle
means.....". I won't go on, I think you get the idea.

>
>: This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you.  However, it
>: seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
>: Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
>: Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
>: complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
>: company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
>: will reject him for a quiet life. 
>
>	Ain't capitalism grand?
No, (though I know of none better), but I can't understand why you put
this in.


KEVIN PHILAN
>	Why, may I ask, has no one raised any complaints about Kurt Stele
>or Tom Moran, two posters who have posted anti-Semitic garbage every bit
>as hateful 
That word "hateful" again. Do you really "hate" these people and their
words? REAL hate? That is an extremely strong emotion, or are you just
being fluid with your meanings again? Dislikable, unpleasant, there
are many words that you could more aptly apply, but, as other people
in this group have often pointed out, you use a small group of extreme
words so often that they have lost any impact they may once have had,
and become laughable. It is the predictablility of it that makes it
laughable.

>as anything Giwer ever spewed up.  
How could you know for a fact that "no-one has raised any complaints
about..." these people? You could not. I think what you mean here is
that YOU have not complained about them, but you cannot know if others
have. Your thinking is so wooly that I am not surprised that you are
an "Exterminationist".

KEVIN PHILAN
>Could it be that they're
>abiding by "netiquette" (i.e. commonly accepted standards of behavior on
>Usenet) and as a result, no one bothers them?

You are absurdly insular. We are not all Americans, and different
cultures approach the internet, and all other social interactions in
different ways. "Netiquette" in this context is pretty meaningless.
What you are saying is that they abide by YOUR standard of behaviour
on the Internet, so you have not complained. So what? American
etiquette is well known for being somewhat less than totally polite. I
suggest you visit uk.finance, and watch an argument there. Swearing is
almost unheard of, not because they are prudes but because they are
arguing facts in a civilized way. After that, in your mind, consider
an Italian or Spanish version. In short, international "Netiquette" is
a concept, not a reality. The American way is not that of everybody
else.

>: If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
>: information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
>: However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
>: information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
>: that "he had been warned".

KEVIN PHILAN
>	So take it up with Gate.net, then.  
What? Complain? Like you do? Is there a body that investigates
breaches of "Netiquette" (awful word) ? I wouldn't dream of it. It
might get Miss Israels  the sack, for example, for something so
unimportant. 

>: Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
>: They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
>: If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
>: priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
>: would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
>: private.
>
>	So take it up with Gate.net, then.
See above.

>: According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
>: knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
>: whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
>: money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
>: again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
>: getting close to violating..."  only that "he had been warned."  I
>: reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
>: stop your wild self-serving inventions. 

KEVIN PHILAN
>	Go ahead and start behaving like Mr. Giwer... and watch how long
>you stay on Demon.  Go ahead; flood the newsgroup with 100+ messages a day
>with various forged "From:" lines.
>
>	Go ahead.  I dare you.
Having spoken to many members of staff at my ISP, I have a fair idea
that I would merely receive an e-mailed request to stop overloading
their servers. As to rising to a child's dare, It is not in my nature
to, though I would feel secure with my provider if I did. 


>
>Peace
>Kevin Filan

"Alles was ist endet..."

Fergus McClelland



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Sun Nov 10 12:20:41 PST 1996
Article: 90015 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!btnet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:09:41 GMT
Lines: 143
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <847634962.358.1@perdrix.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk> <55dqh0$klm@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <327d30de.8680278@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:90015 alt.revisionism:79071

Dene Bebbington  wrote:

Edited slightly, please see original.
>>rcgraves@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:

>>To familiarize yourself with Mr. Giwer again, you can refer to
>>>
>>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>>> http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse
Me:
>>No point, I can see no harm done by him. Maybe it is British culture
>>that enables us to tolerate such trivial matters as you and others are
>>being so hysterical about.
Dene Bebbington: 
>You do not speak for all people in Britain.

No sir, neither do you, nor did I claim to. What a fatuous remark.
However, I do gather from your comment that either you are not
British, though you are in Britain, that you do not associate yourself
with British culture, or that you do not have the British qualities
that I mentioned. 

>>>But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
>>>abusive and dishonest. 

>>Of course it is not. It is so blatant, and he must SURELY know it,
>>that it cannot be either. A minor form of ragging I grant you, but
>>nothing more. You are once again being hysterical. He uses his OWN sig
>>file at the end of the message. He writes in his normal manner. The
>>headers are jokes, misspelled. Only a true idiot could believe either
>>that it is a real attempt to forge or that it is abusive. Calm down,
>>the man identified himself clearly.
Dene Bebbington 
>He was only identified by those aware of him and his silly tactics. When
>he masquerades as other posts (such as Ken McVay) then this is
>unacceptable, and whilst regulars may be wise to his antics, many other
>readers of this newsgroup may not.

This is always the case with newcomers to any group, or, indeed,
newcomers to any walk of life. Newcomers are at a disadvantage
anywhere, it takes but a while for anyone very interested to get to
know. And if they are not very interested they will drift away. Either
way, no harm done.

>>> will turn up content far more
>>>objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
>>>you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
>>>quick succession for doing so. 
>>
>>I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
>>complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
>>If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
>>written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
>>Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
>>him. The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
>>people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
>>because of all that he wrote. They would hardly present the "good"

Dene Bebbington 
>Hardly one sided since they (and I include myself in this) simply used
>Giwer's own posts, that is his own words, when complaining about him.
>That is hardly biased evidence.

Of course it is. You try that in a court of law, presenting only some
of the documents from a bundle and not allowing the jury to see the
rest - see what happens. 
You are one of those mentally puny people who cannot even manage to
fight an argument on the internet without running to complain when you
don't get your own way. You must consider yourself a nothing and a
nobody to have to resort to such measures. I pity anyone with such a
lack of self-conviction, such a knowledge of their own incapacity that
they need to act this way. Can't you even have an argument or two on
the internet without crying and slinking off to whimper your
complaints to somebody bigger than you to do your fighting for you? At
least Mr Giwer has guts - something you obviously lack.
>
>>>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>>>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
>>
>>"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
>>specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness. I can
>>understand blandness in a group where old ladies discuss embroidery
>>patterns.

Dene Bebbington 
>I think that Rich is referring to Netiquette here, his behaviour in
>general (for example, forging) rather than the specific content of his
>posts.

You think, but you don't know. Allow Mr Graves to answer points put to
him if you please. Your thoughts of what he means are of no value.
With regard to "Netiquette" please see my reply to Kevin Filan where I
cover that point.

>>>The expression of such
>>>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>>>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>>>forgery, 
>>No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
>>jokes.
Dene Bebbington 
>Not true.

Facts are not determined by whether or not you say "Not true."  I
suggest that you read "The Green Book", "The White Book" and
"Archbold" before you pontificate so foolishly. These will give you
some idea of County and Supreme Court Practice in this country and how
it defines concepts such as "forgery".

>>>He's more than welcome to post through c2.net, too, provided that he
>>>agrees to abide by content-neutral standards of netiquette. He is
>>>certainly not required to post under his own name, but a stable pseudonym,
>>>or an identifiable range of pseudonyms (as used by Dr. Dmitri Vulis),
>>>seems a reasonable thing to ask.
>>It all amounts to the same thing, whatever he calls himself is
>>irrelevant, the words he utters will be the same. 

Dene Bebbington 
>Only as long as he isn't pretending to be other posters.

This declaimed by the oaf who says that he is not quite decided as to
whether or not people who say they disbelieve in "The Holocaust [TM]"
should be put in gaol. Earlier, you accused me of trying to speak for
the British as a whole, (I think), and here you are stating what
people will be allowed to do on the worldwide Internet. If he expertly
pretended to be other posters - faking his headers and path - how
would you know? Anyway, will you enforce this ban yourself? Will you
go to Mr Giwer and others and personally confront them? I think I will
answer this for you. No you will not. You will go to the big boys and
get them to do your dirty work for you. That is the way of all
cowards.


"alles was ist endet..."


Fergus McClelland

>Dene Bebbington
>
>"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
>



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 11 07:04:02 PST 1996
Article: 79148 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 14:09:36 GMT
Lines: 41
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <847634956.358.0@perdrix.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99e/32.227
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:90176 alt.revisionism:79148

Dene Bebbington  wrote:

>Fergus McClelland  wrote:
>>schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>>>Are you implying that gassing is an appropriate method to deal with people
>>>who notify others of law-breakers?
>>I do not think so, but, as you well know, there are many that do. 
>>
>>> Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
>>>sheet is showing.
>>I don't know what you mean, In England we sleep on sheets, please
>>elucidate.
>
>Are you just ignorant of the reference Sara makes, or is this a pathetic
>attempt at humour? Maybe your hopelessness has something to do with that
>school you attended which you keep harping on about.

Miss Schwartz does not state what she means in a way that I can know
for certain. She may be referring to a flag of truce. She may be
referring to a surrender. I do not know. I submit that neither do you
for certain. At the Balcombe Street siege the IRA hung a white sheet
out of the window when they heard that the SAS were on the way. 
Go into your supermarket or a pub' and say to someone that their
"white sheet is showing." I think a common response would be: "What?
What are you going on about?" In a heated argument it may be assumed
that you are inferring cowardice. At which point you may be punched.
Not an attempt at humour, a request for accuracy. Let Miss Schwartz
answer for herself, or not, that is her prerogative.  

"Alles was ist endet..."

Fergus McClelland



>-- 
>Dene Bebbington
>
>"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
>



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Sat Nov 16 07:00:02 PST 1996
Article: 79643 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!laslo.netnet.net!node2.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!news.texas.net!cdc2.cdc.net!news.stealth.net!news.ibm.net.il!arclight.uoregon.edu!feed1.news.erols.com!howland.erols.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:04:01 GMT
Lines: 291
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <3294a274.8960070@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk>  <3283539b.217744@pubnews.demon.co.uk> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <3283539b.217744@pubnews.demon.co.uk>, redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk
>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
>> schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>> 
>> >Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
>> >answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
>> >speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
>> >with her uterus" stuff. 
>> > 
>> >It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
 Me
>> So, you do accept that I was not "forging" your name.
>
>NO. Nor do I have the vaguest idea where you got that idea. Since you
>obviously need small words for your reading comprehension, let me try
>again:
To explain:
You previously said:
> schwartz@infinet.com (Sara the Prefect) wrote:
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 added/edited by Mr. McClelland, trying to make it look as if I have
this on
my header.
 
>This shows that Mr. McClelland, for all his "outrage," is guilt of the very
>same thing as Mr. Giwer. Forgery. Plain and simple.

To wihch I replied that I had not altered your name or your e-mail
address, so that what I was doing was NOT forgery, or a lie as you had
claimed. Unless of course, you registered yourself with your ISP as
Sara aka Perrrrrfect. But even then, this would not be forgery.
As you dropped the point I assumed that you had seen sense for once
and realised that I had NOT "forged" anything at this point.

Allow me to give you an example from my personal experience.
A common carrier collected a package from me and I had to fill in a
form. There was a space for a signature from me which was only to be
signed if I had my own package insurance and did not want theirs. I
did not sign it. 
After the package was damaged in transit, the company tried to evade
their liability as one of their servants or agents, (incidentally a
Jew) , had handwritten MY name in the space for my signature trying to
claim that it was my signature so that he, and the company, would be
at an advantage. After having sight of the document, I declared that
it was not my signature and said that it had been forged. The company
discovered that their man had done it. The police and lawyers all
agreed that this was NOT forgery, but merely misrepresentation. I, of
course, recieved considerable compensation.  

Sara again:
>Lady makes sense.
>Man cannot repond in smart way.
>Man makes fun of lady.
>Man looks like fool.

>Got it now?

No. I understand the words but reject the concept.

>> I repeat here from my last message a bit you removed:
>> FORGERY:
>> "The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
>> especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
>>                         OED.
>
>Exactly.
>
>You've admitted to Mr. Giwer's forgeries, thanks to the OED.

See above.
> 
>Mr. Giwer forged the names of other people on his posts here. He made a
>fraudulent imitation of something, and falsified documents.

What documents were forged?


>Thanks for the clarification.
>
>> If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
>> spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
>> this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
>> note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
>> tender. 
>
>Analogy doesn't hold water, but thanks for trying.

Because you say so? This is not debating its childlike arrogance. Your
saying something is so does not make it so.

> 
>The proper analogy would be for Mr. Giwer to manufacture his OWN dollar
>bills, since what he did was to create posts and sign the names of OTHER
>people to them.
>
>
>[snip]
>> Reading what you wrote - and quoting it - and giving an opinion does
>> not constitute a lie.

Sara
>Making a false claim is the same thing as lying, I believe.
If that were the case, you would qualify time and again. You call
Judit Toth  Judith. Does that make you a forger? Because she always
signs herself Judit. (Pronounced Youdit I believe). You certainly took
Hardwire to task for putting an H on the end of Sara, and me for
referring to you as the Sara the Prefect or Monica the Monitor, yet
you do the same thing. Also, in another thread you screamingly stated
that Bob Whittaker did not have a PhD. However, he does. As revealed
often in the same thread. So, these two things alone would make you a
liar and a forger by your concept of the meaning of these words. You
have condemned yourself. I shall bear this in mind when you post
regarding the serious matters of this group


>
>> >1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
>> >point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?
>> 
>> This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you.  However, it
>> seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
>> Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
>> Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
>> complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
>> company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
>> will reject him for a quiet life. 
>> 
>
>"This you DO know," since Ms. Israels said it was so. Are you know calling
>HER a liar as well?

Read the paragraph above again! I do not know whether or not Mr Giwer
was warned. Neither do you. You have the word of a Miss Israels in an
e-mail. I have your third hand printing of that e-mail. This does NOT
tell us either that he really was warned, or, if he was, WHAT he was
warned ABOUT!!!! You are indulging in third hand speculation about
something and stating it as fact. Is this how you cogitate when
deciding on matters related to The Holocaust[TM]? I believe it must
be. And please do not accuse me of going off at a tangent as it is
very relevant..


>Mr. "Hardwire" may have "pointed something out," but that doesn't make it
>so. MY ISP goes to great lengths to make sure their customers are happy,
>even customers like me who risk mail bombs by being honest.

>
>> >2. E-mail from system administartors is NOT, IMO, private.
I said
> >You should consider whether your opinion defines facts. It is this
>> Prefect attitude that you are always in the right. Well, Madam, I say
>> that you are wrong. 
>> If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
>> information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
>> However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
>> information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
>> that "he had been warned".
>
>Please translate this into English so I can respond to it.

Imagine
Message from Israels to Schwartz = "Thank you for your message, rest
assured that we will act in the event of Mr Giwer being naughty."
Bland, neutral, nothing private. Can be published. 
However, REAL message from Israels = Internal information, that is,
"Mr Giwer has been warned". Private. Internal Gate Net information
which you could not know without being told by a member of staff. I
would have thought that privity of contract would have applied here,
but I can only speak for English law in this matter.

Me
>> Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
>> They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
>> If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
>> priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
>> would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
>> private.
>
>No.

I do not believe you. On far lesser matters you huff, puff and
screech, spitting venom at all within reach.  This latest obvious
evasion has to be taken into account when reading your other postings.


>[snip]
>> >My ISP is quite familiar with me and the actions I have taken. *I* informed
>> >them myself. And unlike Mr. Giwer, I have had the same ISP for 3 years.

>> I wonder how long you would last if many people ganged up on you?
>> There are many things that you have said in this group which could be
>> used against you - review your previous postings carefully and you
>> will see what I mean. I don't think that you would like me to repeat
>> them here en bloc. 
>> >
>My ISP would stick by me. Period.

Again you stretch credulity. Here you are saying that you can do all
the things of which you accuse Mr Giwer with impugnity. That you can
do anything you like on the internet and your ISP will never
discipline you in any way. If I have got this wrong, then you have
misrepresented your postion with them. By your reckoning that would
make you a liar. Again, your modus operandi is woth noting while
reading your future postings outside this thread. In short, I think
that you cannot be taken seriously, and any statement of yours is
highly questionable. Anything that you say, which I do not
independently know to be true , I shall in future dismiss. How could I
do otherwise?

Me
>> Well not really, I was only saying how I think of you. If your name
>> was Monica, I would think of you as Monica The Monitor.
Sara
>And you don't think this shows a rather high level of immaturity?

No.
 
>[snip]
>
>> I'm sorry Monica, I should have expounded. We were taught in such a
>> way as to be imbued with a sense of fair play and tolerance. There was
>> an old English expression, "Playing with a straight bat", which
>> encompassed the ideal. 
Sara
>But obviously you did NOT learn about personal responsiblity.
It is all part and parcel of the same thing.


>> >Why should they care? Ask them! There *is* something called a user's
>> >agreement, and Mr. Giwer was clearly getting close to violating it. THAT'S
>> >WHY HE WAS WARNED.
>> 
>> According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
>> knowledge. 
>
>Well... that about says it all. If Mr. Hardwire is your "superior
>knowledge," then there isn't much more to say, since Mr. Hardwire is
>astonishingly ignorant.
Sara, you are doing it again.
You are selectively editing and twisting the facts to serve your
purpose. If you will do it over something as trivial as this thread -
to what lengths will you NOT go when debating The Holocaust [TM]
For those interested in the sneakiness of Miss Schwartz, I now
reproduce the original in context, with its meaning restored.

According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
getting close to violating..."  only that "he had been warned."  I
reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
stop your wild self-serving inventions. 


>[snip]
>
>> >Then you have completely validated my point. Thank you, Mr. McClelland.
>> 
>> I have validated nothing - I would merely be a conduit for free
>> speech. And of course, a conduit does not edit - otherwise, the speech
>> would not be free. 
>> 
>
>So you also think it's okay to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater?

Again an example of your extremism. If there was a fire it would be
okay. If there was not no. But what an absurd analogy. Do you REALLY
think that Mr Giwer's postings were equivalent to that? I doubt it.
So, you condemn yourself AGAIN (taking your meanings for liar and
forger into account).




"Alles was ist endet..."





>Sara
>
>-- 
>"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
>                 Samuel Butler
>



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 19 06:47:11 PST 1996
Article: 80108 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:04:11 GMT
Lines: 105
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <3297a289.8981549@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <847634962.358.1@perdrix.demon.co.uk> <567bqp$qkb@news.enter.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:

>>   redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
>
>>  No sir, neither do you, nor did I claim to. What a fatuous remark.
>>  However, I do gather from your comment that either you are not
>>  British, though you are in Britain, that you do not associate yourself
>>  with British culture, or that you do not have the British qualities
>>  that I mentioned. 

(Yale F. Edeiken
>	If British "culture" includes lying, extortion, harassment, forgery, and 
>invasion of privacy as acceptable behavior, than I have another reason to be 
>thankful for the American Revolution.

Here I assume that you are implying that Matt Giwer is "guilty" of all
those acts you list.
So, you claim that he has lied in this group. I would suggest that,
given the plasticity of the word in this group that many of the
"extortionists" have lied in various ways.
You get more interesting when you claim extortion. What on earth has
he extorted and from whom? I look forward to details, or I may have to
assume that you are fantasizing.
Harrassment. 
In America, is one uncalled for e-mail to you harrassment?
Forgery.
I have already covered this point in other replies. Given that his
sig. file was included and the style of writing was his usual and the
misspellings of the headers it was not forgery at all.

>>  You are one of those mentally puny people who cannot even manage to
>>  fight an argument on the internet without running to complain when you
>>  don't get your own way. 

(Yale F. Edeiken
>	Fergus tells us: "How dare you complain to the police just becasue this 
>fine person broke into your house and ransacked it."

This analogy is so far from the original disputed claim, as to be
laughable. Is there no limit to how far you will stretch the point
just to win the argument. This is detached from reality.

>
>>You must consider yourself a nothing and a
>>  nobody to have to resort to such measures.

(Yale F. Edeiken
>	I consider myself the victim of a crime.  I was.
Now this is MOST interesting.
I understand that you are referring to your oft repeated claim that Mr
Giwer sent you a brief e-mail in which he swore at you. As you
regularly say that you are a lawyer of some sort, you must be able to
back this up. This claim of yours would imply that the alleged e-mail
sending was forbidden by statute. Therefore,  I am sure that you will
be able to present to the group the statute(s) which he has violated.
I have already asked  Sara the Prefect / Monica the Monitor who has
made the same accusation but received no reply. In fact, in her
follw-ups to me she deleted the question.

I consider that the ducking and diving and twisting and turning that
is being demonstrated by the "exterminationists" in this thread is
very revealing. It demonstrates the method of argument employed by
them when dealing with the facts and figures of The Holocaust [TM].
Again, it seems that you will make any claim, no matter how
outrageous, to put your opinion across as fact. When caught out, you
scream all the usual abuse or edit out the question.

>> I pity anyone with such a
>>  lack of self-conviction, such a knowledge of their own incapacity that
>>  they need to act this way. Can't you even have an argument or two on
>>  the internet without crying and slinking off to whimper your
>>  complaints to somebody bigger than you to do your fighting for you?

(Yale F. Edeiken
>	Fergus tells us: "If you were a real man you would have gone out and 
>hunted down the man who burglarized your house rather than complaining to the 
>police."

Ah. So here we have it. Mr Edeiken considers that a message to the
group which he disapproves of is on a par with being burgled. Are you
REALLY a trained lawyer? Because, surely, someone thinking and writing
in this wild way would not qualify for the job.

>> At
>>  least Mr Giwer has guts - something you obviously lack.

(Yale F. Edeiken
>	The criminal Giwer 
In what way criminal? Please do not prevaricate, just state the law he
has broken.

>had the backbone of a jellyfish. If your view of life 
>is that his activities showed "courage"  I suggest you read a bit of Houseman.  
>The sickness *is* in your soul.
>
>	--YFE
Mr Giwer speaks his mind, whatever the consequences and voices what he
knows to be true, despite the attacks of the prefects and monitors of
this group. As to there being sickness in my soul, probably, but I
don't think the health of my soul will alter external facts. To wit,
given a bad or a good soul one and one still equals two. 

Fergus McClelland




From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 19 06:47:11 PST 1996
Article: 80111 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:04:07 GMT
Lines: 46
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <3295a281.8973673@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk> <55dqh0$klm@Networking.Stanford.EDU> <327d30de.8680278@news.demon.co.uk>  <847905148.2404.11@vertigo.combase.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hardwire  wrote:

>Dene Bebbington wrote:
>
>> He was only identified by those aware of him and his silly tactics. When
>> he masquerades as other posts (such as Ken McVay) then this is
>> unacceptable, and whilst regulars may be wise to his antics, many other
>> readers of this newsgroup may not.
>> 
Hardwire
>He was identified because he clearly intended the posts to be seen as a
>joke and a slur on the people posting to this newsgroup.  First and
>foremost the tip-off was that he included his OWN signature file with
>the posts.  He wasn't attempting to post forgeries, he was attempting to
>be satirical... or course the effect was totally lost on the malcontent
>hunchbrains in this forum.

Thank you  Hardwire for reinforcing this point so well. If he really
wanted to forge nobody would be able to tell. There were so many
blatant "Giwer footprints" that only the really stupid would fail to
see. Definately not forgeries. If they said that he was mischeivous I
would perhaps find it hard to put forward a refutation. But then,
aren't we all mischeivous at times, (Prefects and Monitors excepted of
course)?


>> >No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
>> >jokes.
>> 
>> Not true.
>> 
Hardwire
>Very true... you people just don't want to let it go at that, needing
>some sort of evidence to support your total innocence in all of this.

I think Hardwire, that any decent people would now be admitting to
their guilt, at least to some degree. I predict that this will not be
forthcoming. As I have said in another posting, I will make a mental
note of this when reading the postings of those concerned when they
are dealing with the serious matters in this group. Others guilty -
yes. Them - no. Never.

Fergus McClelland





From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 19 06:47:13 PST 1996
Article: 80113 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!news.abs.net!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:04:08 GMT
Lines: 49
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <3296a286.8978734@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <847634962.358.1@perdrix.demon.co.uk> <567bqp$qkb@news.enter.net> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Dene Bebbington  wrote:

>"Yale F. Edeiken"  wrote:
>>>   redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
>>
>>>  No sir, neither do you, nor did I claim to. What a fatuous remark.
>>>  However, I do gather from your comment that either you are not
>>>  British, though you are in Britain, that you do not associate yourself
>>>  with British culture, or that you do not have the British qualities
>>>  that I mentioned. 
Yale F. Edeiken
>>       If British "culture" includes lying, extortion, harassment, forgery, and 
>>invasion of privacy as acceptable behavior, than I have another reason to be 
>>thankful for the American Revolution.
Dene Bebbington
>Hey, hang on a minute, not all British take the same view as Fergus -
>thankfully!

Are you now claiming to be British Mr Bebbington? Your lineage would
be nice to know, but I am too polite to ask. However, I am sure that
the majority, thank God, would feel the same way as me.

>>>  You are one of those mentally puny people who cannot even manage to
>>>  fight an argument on the internet without running to complain when you
>>>  don't get your own way. 
(Yale F. Edeiken
>>       Fergus tells us: "How dare you complain to the police just becasue this 
>>fine person broke into your house and ransacked it."
Dene Bebbington
>Well quite, that would be like going to the teacher and crying "please
>sir, look what he did", at least that appears to be how Fergus thinks.

Now you are equating telling the teacher that Johnny at the back of
the class is chewing gum with reporting a serious crime. The two are
not the same. By making this comparison you expose your way of
thinking and I will bear it in mind when reading your comments on the
real issues of this group.

"Alles was ist endet..."

Fergus McClelland


>-- 
>Dene Bebbington
>
>"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
>



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 19 06:47:14 PST 1996
Article: 80206 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!news-out.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: keyboards aren't kosher
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 01:12:59 GMT
Lines: 47
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <3295b555.8200916@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <55pgus$6mj@news1.gte.net>  <328eac60.104235676@news.gte.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

email@add.ress (Full Name) wrote:

>On Sat, 16 Nov 1996 18:56:03 -0500, schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka
>Perrrfect) wrote:
>
>>In article <55pgus$6mj@news1.gte.net>, *@*.* wrote:
>>
>>>         They are finished with pig fat added to the polymer coating
>>
snip
>
>	The aluminum foil was explained by "whatever comes into contact
>with food" as you recall.  People come into contact with food.  People
>come into contact with keyboards.  
>
>	And if someone unclean comes into contact with the food and the
>superstitious find out about it, they curl up in a ball and die.  
>

Dear Mr Full Name,

Before I get to my point in this thread, may I take the opportunity of
welcoming you as a newcomer to alt.rev. You must be prepared to take a
lot of flack from the "holohuggers" (It'll take you a while to sort
out who and what they all are), and be careful not to get a full stop
or comma in the wrong place - as you will get accused of forgery
(especially by Miss Prefect aka Monica the Monitor who will report you
to your ISP - many times!).. 

Anyway, I don't know what the tap water is like in America, but in
many parts of Britain - most notably London - all water is recycled,
sometimes several times. 
Now, considering the vast quantities of pork and shell fish consumed
in Britain, and the fact that it has to be washed, the water
inevitably becomes "contaminated". Surely this cannot be kosher water,
so, don't you think that Jews should avoid drinking it? Their edict -
not mine.

"Alles was ist endet..."


Fergus McClelland


 




From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 19 06:47:15 PST 1996
Article: 80316 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!news.sprintlink.net!news-dc-2.sprintlink.net!news-stock.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-hk.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: keyboards aren't kosher
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 22:18:32 GMT
Lines: 55
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <3290de87.4226399@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <55pgus$6mj@news1.gte.net>  <328eac60.104235676@news.gte.net>  <56p14v$ghk@access1.digex.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

mstein@access1.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article ,
>Sara aka Perrrfect  wrote:
>>In article <328eac60.104235676@news.gte.net>, email@add.ress wrote:
>>>         The aluminum foil was explained by "whatever comes into contact
>>> with food" as you recall.  People come into contact with food.  People
>>> come into contact with keyboards.  
>>> 
>>
>>Okay.
>> 
>>Let's try this again:
>> 
>>WHEN DO KEYBOARDS COME IN CONTACT WITH FOOD?!?
>
>    Sara, it does happen.  I had a former and very unlamented housemate
>who spilled beer all over my keyboard.  Had to replace it. 
>
>
>>Your idiocy knows no bounds, does it, Mr. Giwer?
>
>    Well, yes, but really in this case he's right.  An Orthodox Jew would
>never eat his keyboard.
>
>    It doesn't even have a hechsher on it.
>
>-- 
>Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
>POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
>Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.


Dear Mike,

I can picture in my mind an orthodox Jew sitting at the keyboard idly
tapping at the keys while eating a hamburger. He passes the burger
>from  one hand to the other and inadvertantly touches his keyboard with
the bun. It is now contaminated. Alternatively, mustard may drip from
the burger and he may wipe it off with a finger and then lick his
finger clean. There is also the fact that both hands would almost
certainly have touched the keyboard before touching the burger. The
"uncleanness" would be passed on. Is there a limit to this path of
contamination? What a minefield. I can see no way out of situations
such as this.
How about you writing Torah 2 :-) ?

Fergus









From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 25 06:30:42 PST 1996
Article: 80735 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.mtl.hookup.net!rcogate.rco.qc.ca!clicnet!news.clic.net!news.bconnex.net!op.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: More on the demands for $wi$$ billions
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 16:18:42 GMT
Lines: 84
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <328f34c2.255295@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <3291ef1b.5624155@199.0.216.204> <328e2687.379806@199.0.216.204>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

tm@pacificnet.net (tom moran) wrote:

>	
>	Holocaust Question:
>
>Will all this clamoring for Swiss billions:
>
>A. Cause people to be more responsive to seeking out the plight of the
>Jewish people through the Holocaust story?
>
>B. Cause people to be more responsive to the revisionist side of
>story?

Well Tom, perhaps if I quote an article from the Financial Times,
(published in London 13th November 1996 and written by Norman Hall in
Zurich and Norma Cohen in London) it will shed some further light on
the subject.
==============

SWISS BANKS FACE FRESH ATTACK IN NAZI VICTIM INVESTIGATION

Swiss banks faced fresh international criticism yesterday after
Switzerland's banking ombudsman said he had found only SFr11,000
($8,750) in dormant bank accounts linked to Nazi holocaust victims. 

Mr Hanspeter Hani, the ombudsman, who acts as the first contact point
between the banks and claimants, said that his initial search had
helped eleven claimants track down SFr1.6m in dormant bank accounts
but only five, with claims for SFr11,000, were related to the
holocaust.

Three were descendants of bank customers murdered by the Nazis. The
other two were Romanian Jews who were dispossessed during the war. 

The World Jewish Congress yesterday denounced the ombudsman's efforts
as 'pathetic' .

His findings will widen the gulf of understanding between Jewish
organisations, which believe that Swiss banks hold several billion of
dollars belonging to holocaust victims, and the banks, which argue
that most of the money has been found by earlier investigations. 

Last year, the banks identified SFr38.7m in accounts established
before 1945 and dormant for at least ten years with no known owner.
The ombudsman's task is to help claimants to track down their funds.
The WJC said Mr Hani's reliance on the banks to investigate their own
dormant accounts was inadequate. 

"The ombudsman only makes a photocopy of the claim and circulates it
to all the Swiss banks asking: 'Can you match these names and dates',"
said Mr Kalman Sultanik, vice-chairman of the congress. "He doesn't
send in a team of investigators. He's just a photocopy service."

Mr Hani said that the figures might seem disappointing at first glance
but he was encouraged that something had been found.

The ombudsman, who is financed by the Swiss banks, was given his role
at the start of this year in a bid to defuse criticism that the banks
were dragging their feet in turning over the bank accounts of
holocaust victims.

My Hani is doubling the size of his team and has undertaken to be the
central contact office for an indefinate period. However, he forcasts
that future investigations would not lead to any significantly
different results.



The next day, another article in the same paper discussed an internal
memo of  Union Bank of Switzerland in which the amount of dormant
account money from the wartime period was talked about. The memo said
that: "... UBS and other Swiss banks have already conducted exhaustive
searches for dormant accounts opened by Nazi victims or people acting
for them. "It is highly unlikely that any sums owed to victims' heirs
will be discovered as a result of new searches.""


Fergus McClelland








From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 25 06:30:43 PST 1996
Article: 80766 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,fl.general,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:43:49 GMT
Lines: 44
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <32946b5d.183780@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk>  <3287D581.75AE@conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:93039 alt.revisionism:80766

Bob Whitaker  wrote:

>Dene Bebbington wrote:
>> 
>> Fergus McClelland  wrote:
>> >schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>> >>Are you implying that gassing is an appropriate method to deal with people
>> >>who notify others of law-breakers?
>> >I do not think so, but, as you well know, there are many that do.
>> >
>> >> Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
>> >>sheet is showing.
>> >I don't know what you mean, In England we sleep on sheets, please
>> >elucidate.
>> 
>> Are you just ignorant of the reference Sara makes, or is this a pathetic
>> attempt at humour? Maybe your hopelessness has something to do with that
>> school you attended which you keep harping on about.
>> 
>> --
>> Dene Bebbington
>> 
>> "... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
>
Bob Whitaker:
>     The sheets reference accuses you of being a member of the Ku Klux
>Klan, which is another version of their accusing you of being A Nazi Who
>Wants To Kill Six Million Jews.  It's a standard Politically Correct
>clone statement they use against pretty well everybody.

Thanks Bob,

Such insularity! I don't think that there is a Ku Klux Klan in
Britain, far too cold for walking around wrapped in sheets. Anyway, I
thought that they wore silk robes and a wimple, so I do not feel silly
for not having got the connection. It's not like Monica to be so
vague.

Fergus 







From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 25 06:30:44 PST 1996
Article: 80767 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!pumpkin.pangea.ca!felix.junction.net!news.bconnex.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!feed1.news.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,fl.general,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:43:47 GMT
Lines: 73
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <32956b80.218718@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <56har6$hqb@news3.gte.net> <56qhc0$4nm$1@gruvel.une.edu.au> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:93045 alt.revisionism:80767

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <56qhc0$4nm$1@gruvel.une.edu.au>, ibokor@metz.une.edu.au
>(ibokor) wrote:
>
>> * * (*@*.*) wrote:
>> : 
>> :       Rather a silly little bitch promoting a jew agenda.
>> : 
>> 
>> I thought she was fat, not little, or am I
>> forgetting which ad hominem is directed at 
>> whom?


Sara:
>No, according to Mr. Giwer, I'm a fatbroad and a dumb cunt.


>I'm also a bitch, a stupid bitch, a silly bitch, a jewess bitch, and quite
>a few other colorful epithets.

Such honesty is to be commended, but aren't you being a little hard on
yourself?


 
>What I am *not*, however, is taken in by any of Mr. Giwer's inane babblings.
> 
>He's a sad, pathetic, impotent little man, with nothing better to do in his
>empty little life than sit around making up new handles for himself. (Now
>it' Sidney the Yid, BTW.) And he is SUCH a pathetic little man that he
>attempts to dredge up the same old lies again and again, like a little
>four-year-old. 



>(Mommy! That mean Ken McVay is bothering me again!! Mommy,
>that mean Yale Edeiken is bothering me! Mommy! They're picking on me
>again!)

Fascinating, 
You are complaining about someone complaining to an outsider in the
middle of an argument. Or, to put it another way, you are saying:

"Gate Net, that mean Matt Giwer is bothering me! Gate Net! He's
picking on my friends again!"

But then, you DID say that didn't you. Clearly, you now think such
behaviour is reprehensible - when it is done by others. What is it
puts you above the standards you set for others? Especially given your
startling admissions above!


 
Snipped, questions for Mr Giwer in which, I think Miss Prefect tries
to say that if he is not an expert on autism he was wrong to claim
disbelief when she stated that her autistic son reads the postings in
this group and was upset by things Mr Giwer said.


>Sara
>
>-- 
>"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
>                 Samuel Butler
Quoted by the Prefect, who promiscuously calls everyone in this group
who disagrees with her a liar.

"Alles was ist, endet..."

Fergus McClelland



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Mon Nov 25 06:30:44 PST 1996
Article: 80848 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!hookup!gatech!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:43:44 GMT
Lines: 157
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <32966c00.347689@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <3297a289.8981549@news.demon.co.uk> <56ndmr$um@news.enter.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:

>>   redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
>>  yawen@enter.net (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>
>>  (Yale F. Edeiken
>>  >	If British "culture" includes lying, extortion, harassment, forgery, and 
>>  >invasion of privacy as acceptable behavior, than I have another reason to 
>be 
>>  >thankful for the American Revolution.
I said
>>  Here I assume that you are implying that Matt Giwer is "guilty" of all
>>  those acts you list.

Yale F. Edeiken responded
>	I am sorry that you take my statements as an implication.  Let me 
>clarify.  I state positively that the criminal Giwer did those things.

Okay, Statement of Claim acknowledged.

I said
>>  You get more interesting when you claim extortion. What on earth has
>>  he extorted and from whom? I look forward to details, or I may have to
>>  assume that you are fantasizing.

Yale F. Edeiken
>	I suggest you check the nizkor files in which a clear attempt at 
>extortion was made.

Comparison to your suggestion.
I hit you, and you call your family as judge and jury.

Also, I think that the idea of my looking for unbiased truth in the
records of a murky "front" organisation for a synagogue, which hasn't
even got offices that can be visited would be unwise.
However; now that I am aware of the incident to which you refer, I
have read enough of what you and Mr Giwer have said about this
"alleged extortion" in other threads and remember enough of the
original details to comment.
As others have said so correctly, Mr Giwer requested strongly that
Nizcor remove his postings from their files for a specific reason. The
postings were not archived along with all the other responses in
threads so would give a biased view of the way he writes, and by
natural extension, of the man himself. Also, the files in question
were/are not complete, they are not ALL Mr Giwers postings, just the
ones which, when taken in isolation, show him in a particular light.
He therefore felt that what they were doing was unreasonable. With his
request he talked about "unspecified" action being taken against
Nizcor if they did not comply. 
There is surely no way that any real court would consider that  to be
extortion. If you are a lawyer you are aware of this. In that case,
you are avoiding the truth to suit yourself. It may be that you
genuinely believe that Mr Giwer committed an attempt at extortion, but
it would still be for a court to decide on the matter. I suggest that
in future you refer to "an act which I allege to be an attempt at
extortion". If, that is, you want to gain any credibility with
unbiased readers.

>
>>  Harrassment. 
>>  In America, is one uncalled for e-mail to you harrassment?

(Yale F. Edeiken
>	It was more than one.  And the answer is "yes."

>From  your other postings you state that it was two e-mails. 
I would not know if an American court would consider this harassment
and would submit that again, the act is not harassment in law until it
be so judged.

Me
>>  Forgery.
>>  I have already covered this point in other replies. Given that his
>>  sig. file was included and the style of writing was his usual and the
>>  misspellings of the headers it was not forgery at all.

Yale F. Edeiken
>	You are quite wrong.  I do not know if there is a specific definition of 
>"forgery" in British law but in the U.S. includes "A fruadulent making and 
>alteration of a writing to prejudice of another man's right . . ." (Black's Law 
>Dictionary, 4th Ed.)

It would be interesting to see this case proved. Again, until it be so
judged you are talking about an allegation rather than a fact.


>>  (Yale F. Edeiken
>>  >	I consider myself the victim of a crime.  I was.
Me
>>  Now this is MOST interesting.
>>  I understand that you are referring to your oft repeated claim that Mr
>>  Giwer sent you a brief e-mail in which he swore at you.

(Yale F. Edeiken
>	You omit the fact that it was in response to to a request that the 
>criminal Giwer cease sending me e-mail (as he did on at least four occasions).  
>You omit as well the fact that the criminal Giwer sent another e-mail addressed 
>to "Dear Jerk-off Jew" and including his vitriolic anti-Semitic writing.

So it was FOUR now. Sorry, in another thread I thought that you said
it was two.  How many were sent after the request to stop?  Is it an
arrestable offence in America to call you a "Jerk-off Jew"? If so,
that would tend to give credence to the ZOG concept would it not?
However, you are still saying "The Criminal Giwer". Again, if you be a
lawyer you know that there are specific legal definitions of
"Criminal". Such as someone who has committed a crime, or someone who
has been found guilty of committing a crime. The "crimes" you allege
strike me as infantile - mocked up messages in usenet, a request for
someone to stop using his copywrite "or else" and four e-mails in
which he called you names. Not exactly the crime of the century. I
mean, on a scale that starts with dropping a chewing gum wrapper in
the street, goes on to walking on the grass and ends with mass murder
- where would you places these "crimes"? Do you not see that your
vivid overstating of any case you may have destroys your position? You
come across as overwrought and deluded - or just untruthful.

>> As you
>>  regularly say that you are a lawyer of some sort, you must be able to
>>  back this up. This claim of yours would imply that the alleged e-mail
>>  sending was forbidden by statute.

(Yale F. Edeiken
>	I most assuredly can.

Mr Edeiken, see the following paragraph. I asked you to present the
statutes, all you have said that it is against the law in your state
of america. How about Florida, how about other countries? This is,
after all the internet. What if I swore at you in e-mails, would you
consider me a criminal? Can the police be sent from Pennsylvania all
the way to Florida to arrest Mr Giwer and bring him back to stand
trial for his e-mails to you? 
Under what SPECIFIC statute(s). 
What are the penalties? 
Stop avoiding. If I said that it was illegal to eat carrots on a
Sunday in England and you asked me to prove it, my saying "it's in the
bye-laws of the City of London" would not be enough for you I am sure.
You would call me a fool for trying to get away with such a
transparent evasion, and I can only assume that some may think the
same of you.

Me
>> Therefore,  I am sure that you will
>>  be able to present to the group the statute(s) which he has violated.
>>  I have already asked  Sara the Prefect / Monica the Monitor who has
>>  made the same accusation but received no reply. In fact, in her
>>  follw-ups to me she deleted the question.
Yale F. Edeiken
>	Yep.  The statutes of Pennsylvania relating to criminal harassment 
>and hate crimes.

This is far too vague. Never mind the statutes, which we have every
right to be given by you, have you any case law with which you can
regale us? For all I know you are telling the truth, it just doesn't
come across that way. Proof please.

>	--YFE



From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 26 06:51:31 PST 1996
Article: 93039 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,fl.general,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:43:49 GMT
Lines: 44
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <32946b5d.183780@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <327fdff5.15295167@news.demon.co.uk>  <3287D581.75AE@conterra.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:93039 alt.revisionism:80766

Bob Whitaker  wrote:

>Dene Bebbington wrote:
>> 
>> Fergus McClelland  wrote:
>> >schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>> >>Are you implying that gassing is an appropriate method to deal with people
>> >>who notify others of law-breakers?
>> >I do not think so, but, as you well know, there are many that do.
>> >
>> >> Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
>> >>sheet is showing.
>> >I don't know what you mean, In England we sleep on sheets, please
>> >elucidate.
>> 
>> Are you just ignorant of the reference Sara makes, or is this a pathetic
>> attempt at humour? Maybe your hopelessness has something to do with that
>> school you attended which you keep harping on about.
>> 
>> --
>> Dene Bebbington
>> 
>> "... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
>
Bob Whitaker:
>     The sheets reference accuses you of being a member of the Ku Klux
>Klan, which is another version of their accusing you of being A Nazi Who
>Wants To Kill Six Million Jews.  It's a standard Politically Correct
>clone statement they use against pretty well everybody.

Thanks Bob,

Such insularity! I don't think that there is a Ku Klux Klan in
Britain, far too cold for walking around wrapped in sheets. Anyway, I
thought that they wore silk robes and a wimple, so I do not feel silly
for not having got the connection. It's not like Monica to be so
vague.

Fergus 







From redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk Tue Nov 26 06:51:32 PST 1996
Article: 93045 of soc.culture.jewish
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!noc.van.hookup.net!nic.win.hookup.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!pumpkin.pangea.ca!felix.junction.net!news.bconnex.net!news.supernet.net!news.magicnet.net!feed1.news.erols.com!hunter.premier.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!perdrix.demon.co.uk
From: redux@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.jewish,fl.general,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 20:43:47 GMT
Lines: 73
Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Message-ID: <32956b80.218718@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <558uaj$38a@panix2.panix.com> <559u0o$1m2s@news.gate.net>  <327a0973.2522479@news.demon.co.uk>  <56har6$hqb@news3.gte.net> <56qhc0$4nm$1@gruvel.une.edu.au> 
NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: perdrix.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99f/32.299
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca soc.culture.jewish:93045 alt.revisionism:80767

schwartz@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:

>In article <56qhc0$4nm$1@gruvel.une.edu.au>, ibokor@metz.une.edu.au
>(ibokor) wrote:
>
>> * * (*@*.*) wrote:
>> : 
>> :       Rather a silly little bitch promoting a jew agenda.
>> : 
>> 
>> I thought she was fat, not little, or am I
>> forgetting which ad hominem is directed at 
>> whom?


Sara:
>No, according to Mr. Giwer, I'm a fatbroad and a dumb cunt.


>I'm also a bitch, a stupid bitch, a silly bitch, a jewess bitch, and quite
>a few other colorful epithets.

Such honesty is to be commended, but aren't you being a little hard on
yourself?


 
>What I am *not*, however, is taken in by any of Mr. Giwer's inane babblings.
> 
>He's a sad, pathetic, impotent little man, with nothing better to do in his
>empty little life than sit around making up new handles for himself. (Now
>it' Sidney the Yid, BTW.) And he is SUCH a pathetic little man that he
>attempts to dredge up the same old lies again and again, like a little
>four-year-old. 



>(Mommy! That mean Ken McVay is bothering me again!! Mommy,
>that mean Yale Edeiken is bothering me! Mommy! They're picking on me
>again!)

Fascinating, 
You are complaining about someone complaining to an outsider in the
middle of an argument. Or, to put it another way, you are saying:

"Gate Net, that mean Matt Giwer is bothering me! Gate Net! He's
picking on my friends again!"

But then, you DID say that didn't you. Clearly, you now think such
behaviour is reprehensible - when it is done by others. What is it
puts you above the standards you set for others? Especially given your
startling admissions above!


 
Snipped, questions for Mr Giwer in which, I think Miss Prefect tries
to say that if he is not an expert on autism he was wrong to claim
disbelief when she stated that her autistic son reads the postings in
this group and was upset by things Mr Giwer said.


>Sara
>
>-- 
>"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
>                 Samuel Butler
Quoted by the Prefect, who promiscuously calls everyone in this group
who disagrees with her a liar.

"Alles was ist, endet..."

Fergus McClelland

Home ·  Site Map ·  What's New? ·  Search Nizkor