[email protected]@ Alec Grynspan wrote:
>In <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Michael P. Stein) writes:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>Johan Carlson wrote:
>>>>With your so called proof you could probably prove that ‘operation desert
>>>>storm’ was just a media trick.
>>> As I have noted, I have attempted to prove nothing about the holocaust.
>>>You can repeat it for years and that will not make it true. Or do you
>>>understand what proof is?
>> Matt probably does not notice the man is posting from Sweden. Fooling
>>a non-native speaker really should not earn any points at all.
>> Mr. Giwer is playing more trollish word games. He is telling the
>>truth. To start with, in order to attempt to prove something about the
>>Holocaust, he would have to offer evidence. People have been asking for
>>him to provide it for many of his assertions and have gone away
>> Whether he is trying to _convince_ people to _believe_ something about
>>the Holocaust is another matter.
>CONGRATULATIONS!!!! You’ve caught Matt’s favorite trick: Set things up
>where you think he said “X” and then sit back and insult everybody while
>telling them exactly what he did above.
>He’s actually given an answer!! Only everybody keeps asking him for
>”proof” to his challenges. He doesn’t make a claim that he has to prove.
>HE DENIES THE CLAIM AND PLACES THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE CLAIMANT!!
>He’s not very good at it, but he tries.
How can I not be very good at it and make this conference to anything I
want it to do?
>My personal favorite tactic is to agree with someone, but in such a way
>that they are certain that I’ve said something terrible and accused them
>of some hideous act or whatever.
>Then sit back and wait for the person to go ballistic. When challenged I
>need only counter-challenge and demand proof that I ever said anything
>of the sort, ask why they are getting so bent out of shape, etcetera.
>The person goes back to a copy of my original statement and presents it
>in triumph – totally oblivious to the fact that the words state the
>opposite of what he thinks I said.
>Now – If I were Matt, I would have my jollies from the reaction itself,
>so I’d continue it. The trap is beautifully subtle at times. Ken McVay’s
>”proof” that Matt is anti-semitic contains just such traps (sorry, Ken,
>But I’m not Matt, so I use it to make a fool of my opponent and get him
>so flustered that he ends up leaving me alone – slinking away. Only
>someone that’s totally brain-dead would continue (Dave Dahlman is an
>example of that). I used it on an ally of Dahlman’s – a nasty little
>anti-semite named Dee (Demetrios) Lamzaki, among others.
>Haven’t you noticed that Matt doesn’t come after me like that? Now you
>know why. He knows that I know his game.
>The big problem is that it only works well on a person with both a
>fairly good level of intelligence *AND* one who’s already in an
>argument. That’s why the deniers and distortionists are poor targets.
And everything you say demonstrates that I can do whatever I want to do.
But of course you notice that you are being attacked for everything you
say. You are being attacked by the Dahlman supporters. You are being
attacked simply for the sake of attacking someone.
But a straightforward question, would you prefer an admitted Nazi or
Or rather, as AG said, (sort of) it is people like this who will kill
the holocaust by they claims.
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Subject: Re: Nizkor, Home of Superheroes
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 05:06:08 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Jun 13 12:08:53 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82