In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer wrote:
>[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes…
>>>>>[email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken) wrote:
>>>>>>> [email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>>>>>>> Accoring to the answer to question 5 on the holocaust from the
>>>>>>> Simon Wiesenthal Center and crediting the encyclopedia of the
>>>>>>> holocaust, it gives the number of Jews that died in the private
>>>>>>> holocaust by country and by percentage in that country. This of
>>>>>>> course permits us to calculate the total number of in those
>>>>>>> countries, presumably at the end of the war. That gives us 9.6
>> Oh, gee, I missed this one before. No wonder I couldn’t figure out
>>for the life of me what Giwer was going on about. The SWC percentages
>>were of _prewar_ population, not _end of the war_ population. There is no
>>”presumably” about it. The SWC question quite clearly and explicitly
>>>5. How many Jews were murdered in each country and what
>>>percentage of the pre-war Jewish population did they constitute?
>> It would be so nice if Matt Giwer would learn to read, really it
> Gee you are correct. They did have enough births to increase
>their population by 14% in only four years. At that rate the
>Jewish population doubled ever seven years.
You dishonestly deleted the text where I mentioned that some
(admittedly small) part of the discrepancy may be due to emigration
outside Europe between the unstated year the SWC is using as a baseline
and the unstated year the Wannsee document used as a baseline. Much more
dishonest is deleting the text where I said that the Wannsee document used
a 5,000,000 figure which was so round and squishy that it was an obvious
estimate. The SWC figure for the Soviet Union was somewhere in the 3
As I indicated and as you dishonestly deleted from my post, the most
honest and simple explanation is that they were working from different
population estimates, not that there was a population increase.
You know that. You just lied about it.
> Are you really sure you want to stick with this position in
>defending the SWC nonsense? Or would you like to fall back to
>claiming like McVay that it was some unstated difference between
>occupied and unoccupied?
> Anything else you would like to make up?
Any more lies you would like to tell? I’m sure the lurkers must be
very impressed by the way you fight for the truth by lying through your
teeth. Please, impress them some more. You are making Tom Moran look
good, and I would not have thought that possible.
It is amazing that Giwer cannot be a little more subtle in his
dishonesty. He did not even wait until my article would have expired from
most servers. Anyone can go back and see what Giwer had to delete from my
text in order to make his dishonest response.
One would expect a 163 IQ type to be smart enough to have started some
tedious argument about how estimates CANNOT POSSIBLY vary by that much
(Because! I! Say! So!). At least that lie would not have been so
trivial to expose.
I did not realize that when Giwer claimed critical thinking skills he
meant his brain had suffered a nuclear meltdown. It is not surprising
that he claims to be retired at age 51.
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
From: [email protected] (Michael P. Stein)
Subject: Giwer dishonestly deletes text from response
Date: 6 Jun 1996 11:56:51 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications,
Greenbelt, MD USA
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>