Path: news2.digex.net!digex.net!not-for-mail
From: mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Kurt Stele believes in time travel
Date: 18 Dec 1996 20:04:39 -0500
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 161
Message-ID: <59a4b7$7f4@access5.digex.net>
References: <3272FCD8.152C@er4.eng.ohio-state.edu> <32b4fc0d.1392019@news.gte.net> <593gna$p5g@access5.digex.net> <32b7367e.89049182@news.micron.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access5.digex.net
Xref: news2.digex.net alt.revisionism:135634

In article <32b7367e.89049182@news.micron.net>,
Kurt Stele  wrote:
>On 16 Dec 1996 07:52:58 -0500, mstein@access5.digex.net (Michael P.
>Stein) wrote:
>
>>In article <32b4fc0d.1392019@news.gte.net>,
>>Matt Giwer (mgiwer@gte.net) under the name
>>Halsey  wrote:
>>>On Sun, 15 Dec 96 16:40:35 PDT, Mike Cullinan 
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I was brought in here following one of Giwer's trolls, so I guess I'll
>>>>stick around and watch for a while.
>>>
>>>	Please do.  The more the merrier.
>>>	
>>>	And as a newcomer, you will be amazed as to what you are required
>>>to believe as a full fledged holobuggerer.
>>
>>    It is not nearly as amazing as what is required in order to believe
>>the lies of Matt Giwer.
>>
>>http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lies/lie-openly-admitted.html
>
>Let's look at this "Nizkor cite" closely:
>
>From: mgiwer@ix.netcom.com (Matt Giwer) 
>Newsgroups: alt.revisionism 
>Subject: Re: Mauving right along 
>Date: Tue, 23 Jul 1996 03:03:11 GMT 
>Message-ID: <4t1ff2$al0@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com> 
>
>>>>   [Giwer] "It was recently observed that when the holohugger story  
>>>>   changes it is those on the other side who are accused of changing." 
>
>>>[Grynspan] "Matt, you changed your story about Dahlman and his provider 
>>>so many times that it must have worn out the phosphor on at least one 
>>>screen. 
>
>>[Giwer] "Because I have no intention of leading him to exactly what he did 
>>wrong that caused it to be shut down. It is very simple and
>>straightfoward. It is also very  easy to overlook. He continues to
>>overlook the reason." 

>
>To which Michael Stein replies: 
>
>>"In other words, you openly admit you deliberately lied at least two out 
>>of the three times. Now that we have your completely candid admission 
>>that you are a wilful liar, the only question is how many other lies you 
>>have told, including about your scientific knowledge. 

>
>Stein's commentary does not follow necessarily.

    Matt's three stories are mutually contradictory.  Only one can be
true.  Sorry about that.  And he certainly ought to know whether he filed
a complaint or whether he did not.  Sorry about that again.  And if he did
file a complaint, he certainly ought to know what the grounds were.  Yet
he could not keep the story straight on those points.  Sorry about that
again. 


>Giwer did not
>necessarily "lie" as his reply "because I have no intention..." could
>very well be (and probably is) Giwer's interpretation of Grynspan's
>comment as a misunderstanding on the latter's part,

    It would have had to have been Giwer's misunderstanding, not
Grynspan's.  Grynspan said the story changed.  That is a provable fact.
The three separate and mutually contradictory claims about who did what
and why can all be found on DejaNews.


>or an
>interpretation of Grynspan as having misunderstood the intention of
>Giwer not specifying "what [the person] did wrong."

    Nice dodge, but the fact remains that this has nothing to do with
Grynspan's actual words.  Giwer first said something about people changing
stories about the Holocaust.  Grynspan stated a simple fact - that Giwer
himself changed his story about Dahlman.  Period.  Clearly Grynspan's
comment was focused on Matt's hypocrisy in talking about people changing
stories, not on the specifics of the Dahlman matter.  Because of the
context, there was nothing about the situation for Grynspan to
misunderstand.

    Yet Giwer addressed the specific matter of the censorship of Dahlman. 
As a matter of standard textual interpretation, the "because" which begins
Giwer's reply serves to introduce an explanation for the fact stated
immediately prior. 

    Tell me, O mighty thinker, how Grynspan could have misunderstood the
intention of Giwer not specifying "what the person did wrong" when Giwer
did not declare that intention until AFTER Grynspan made the comment you
think was the result of that misunderstanding?  Do you think Alec had a
time machine which he used to go forward in time, read Giwer's words, then
write his misunderstanding of them so that Giwer could declare his
intention in reply to that misunderstanding?

    Oops there.  Boy, those time travel paradoxes sure give me a headache.


>At any rate, Giwer is not "openly admitting" to having lied about
>anything.

    I find it quite interesting that all this time the gentleman has not
seen fit to speak up for himself.

    So tell us about that time machine of Alec's....


>To that Stein draws the sweeping conclusion:
>
>>"Obviously nothing at all you say can be trusted, since you have now 
>                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>revealed your willingness to lie when it suits your purposes." 
>
>In that thread Stein, in a leap of grade-school quality, seized a
>questionable discrepancy to try to discredit the entire sum -all- of
>Giwer's writing.

    If that were the only discrepancy in Giwer's writing I would not be
making such a sweeping generalization.  It is merely the first one he
freely admitted to.  There were dozens of "discrepancies" before that; 
very little of what he said could be trusted even before that even if they
were all simple error.  His error rate was simply too high. 

    Someone who pulls a boner like suggesting that Alec's comment was
generated by a misunderstanding of words Giwer had not yet uttered is
really not in a position to comment about grade-school quality
thinking.


>Stein now posts a Nizkor URL that claims "Giwer lies openly."

    I stand by my claim.  He told three separate stories which could not
simultaneously be true.  He did not dispute this fact; he merely said
"Because I have no intention of leading him to exactly what he did wrong." 
As a reply to a statement of fact, such a phrase serves as an explanation
of the fact.  The odd thing is, Giwer could have achieved his stated
purpose simply by keeping his big mouth shut.  But instead he chose to
lie. 

    How many other examples do you want of his deliberately deceptive
editing, his open denial of writing words he wrote just a week earlier,
his assertions that people wrote things they never said, etc.? 

    If you truly believe your own sophistry, I will happily wager $1,000
that I can prove to the satisfaction of a member of the American
Arbitration Association that Giwer has made false statements that he knew,
or should have known, were false at the time he made them.  Loser pays all
costs and the amount of the wager is paid to a nonprofit organization of
the winner's choice. 

    Talk is cheap, Kurt.  Willing to put your money where your big mouth
is?  You chickened out on the Posen tape, how about this one?
-- 
Mike Stein			The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420			Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA  22210		position of my employer.
------- end of forwarded message -------

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