Followups why, Giwer Matt

See also: (page does not exist)

For literally hundreds of counterexamples refuting Giwer’s claim that his
spamming is only a response to “attack posts,” see: (page does not exist)

From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Subject: Re: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 23:03:49 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
X-NETCOM-Date: Thu Jun 27 6:06:36 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82
Xref: alt.revisionism:51472

[email protected] (Richard Schultz) wrote:

>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

>: They [the unindicted co-conspirators]even edit
>: messages to post them to abuse.misc to make it look like I am the one
>: abusing the newsgroup. The whole thing is a setup against me. One more
>: attempt in a long list.

>Excuse me, but as far as I have seen, there is only one regular poster
>to alt.revisionism that “responds” to posts with articles that contain
>no new text and a .sig file of 100 or more lines. Whoever he is, I
>think we can make a case that he is abusing the group. Or maybe he’s
>simply indulging in self-abuse. Whatever.

When the message I respond to me contains an attack against me thus
deviating the from the serious debate that the holohuggers claim they
want then I will continue to respond in that manner.

If you folks do what you say you want to do and stop the attack posts
and there will be no such posts. But you know that.