Documents

Giwer, controv 10-1994

On 10/28/94 SCOT BEAR to MATT GIWER on PROBLEM?

SB> > As Tandy Way, sysop of 377/6, has not seen fit to tell
SB> > me what your “complaint” was about me would you be willing
SB> > to tell me personally?

SB> Probably nothing except the fact that you are a Right-Wing
SB> reactionary idiot who does nothing but foment trouble in
SB> any area which he accesses. In other words, you’re a
SB> paranoid jerk who fancies himself as the “savior” of the
SB> US.

Quite a nerf brain, considering the issue hinges upon the
moderator’s paranoia in finding a threat of legal action where
there was none. Of course there was also his reminder he works
for a place with over a hundred lawyers. I was shaking after I
read that.

®®юю R_9411 ююЇЇ
+++ююююю r_941104 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (64)
To: Bernard Sainz 1 Nov 94 00:32:00
Subject: PROBLEM?
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Justic, unlike revenge, is best served warm and bleeding.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 396/1 3603/141 270
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 20060 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (65)
To: Scot Bear 1 Nov 94 00:32:00
Subject: PROBLEM?

On 10/28/94 SCOT BEAR to MATT GIWER on PROBLEM?

SB> > As Tandy Way, sysop of 377/6, has not seen fit to tell
SB> > me what your “complaint” was about me would you be willing
SB> > to tell me personally?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Justic, unlike revenge, is best served warm and bleeding.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (110)
To: All 1 Nov 94 15:01:00
Subject: CAN STATES SECEDE? 01

Is Secession from the United States Permitted?
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/1>

The common consensus, the majority if you will, hold there
is no right for any state to secede from the United States. Were
the majority ever right upon anything there might be some
position for the majority thinking. But, as in the Civil War, it
was no different majority rule or rather victor’s justice.
When one looks to see if something is permitted or not, one
looks for previous examples and the closer the match to the issue
at hand the better. Thus we consider the post Revolutionary War
colonies and the Articles of Confederation.
Two years before the end of the Revolutionary War the 1781
Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation. Four
times the Articles stated it would exist in perpetuity it lasted
only eight years from 1781 to 1789.
But in ending in 1789 it required the states to withdraw
from the binding, perpetual agreement of the Articles of
Confederation. There was no objection, no war, no animosity save
perhaps at town meetings at local public houses. Contrast this
to the Civil war.
The Constitution of the United States is silent upon how
long it would be in effect. The only implication of a time limit
was to prohibit amendments that would effect the slavery question
until 1808. There is a statement of the requirements for the
Constitution to be ratified but not that upon ratification it
would be binding upon all of the states, rather only that it
would come into effect. It in no manner abolished the Articles
of Confederation nor the alliance formed by it.
Further, there was the inclusion of the 10th Amendment
specifically reserving to the states and the people the
undelegated powers to the states and the people. It would appear
since secession was not mentioned that it was a power reserved
to the states as the ratification of the Constitution was by the
states rather than to the people by popular referendum.
So what was the difference? The Confederate States fired upon
the federal Ft. Sumpter in South Carolina, the first state to
secede. What is rarely mentioned is that secession began four
months earlier and had a functioning government for three months
prior to Ft. Sumpter. It was only after the shooting started
that Lincoln ordered the blockade of southern ports and the
raising of an army and when that happened four additional states
including Virginia seceded to complete the Confederacy.
The constitutional authority to respond with force comes
from the Article III. Section 3. definition of treason that of
“levying war against them.” Had that been avoided there would
have been no basis for a military response to the creation of the
Confederacy.
It is clear that both the ratification of the US
Constitution and the formation of the Confederacy followed the
essentially the same paths save for the initiation of
hostilities. Thus we have the “secession rights” decision having
been “settled” by military force.
But to take it one step further, the victors held it was not
a war of secession at all but rather a civil war within the
nation rather than the Confederate holding that it was a war
between the states. The distinction is simply that the north did
not recognize secession in the first place although it did
nothing to respond to the secession and the formation of a new
government until after the initiation of hostilities.
It would at first appear that any state(s) has the reserved
power of secession if the state simply avoids initiating
hostilities. Even federal laws clearly hold that for the federal
government to interfere within a state that it must be at the
request of the state. The only constitutional pretext for
intervention is to preserve a republican form of government
within the states.
There exists only one annoying precedent in this matter, the
intervention of federal troops into the desegregation issue in
Alabama without the request of the governor who was in fact
leading the issue. This would be under the doctrine of
protection of the rights of the people under the 14th amendment.
It would appear that in secession a state must also avoid denying
the citizens of the state the benefits deriving from the Federal
government.
This would appear to apply to not stopping social security
payments and the like but there appears a great silence on
whether the citizens of the state(s) in secession would be
required to pay for such benefits. It does not appear this would
be sufficient for the federal government initiate hostilities.
Hostilities would obviously consist of taking over the
mechanism of the government of the state but that would be
denying the citizens of the state a republican form of
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941105 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (220)
To: All 2 Nov 94 10:53:00
Subject: PROP 187 G.F. WILL 01

Court worsened burden of illegal immigration

by George F. Will

WASHINGTON – Justice William Brennan, asked if he regretted any
decision he rendered during his 34 years on the Supreme Court,
replied, “Hell no, I never thought that I was wrong.” And he
always ways thought he had a right to impose social policies he
considered right. Today’s national debate about California’s
Proposition 187, which would deny free public education and some
other non-emergency public services to illegal Immigrants, arises
from damage done by Brennan’s, and the court’s, hubris.

In 1982 the court narrowly (5-4) over turned a Texas statute
denying free public educatIon to illegal immigrants. The majority
opinion, wrItten by Brennan and joined by Marshall, Powell,
Blackmun and Stevens, extended the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of
“equal protection of the laws” to people seeking entitlements
from a state In which their presence was illegal.

Brennan argued that Texas’ statute was unfair because
Illegal immigrant minors are not responsible for where they are,
that the law was bad social policy because it might produce an
underclass, and that therefore the law was unconstitutional. This
is the familiar non sequitur by which imperial judges turn courts
into legislatures: whatever the judges deem unfair or unwise must
be unconstitutional.

Chief Justice Burger, dissenting and joined by White,
Rehnquist and O’Connor, noted that “the court makes no attempt to
disguise the fact that it is acting to make up for Congress’ lack
of ‘effective leadership'” regarding immigration. The court, he
said, was yet again attempting “speedy and wholesale formulation
of ‘remedies’ for the failures – or simply the laggard pace – of
the political processes of our system of government.”

Brennan did acknowledge that “courts must be attentive to
congressional policy… [which] might well affect the state’s
prerogatives to afford differential treatment to a particular
class of aliens.” But he was inattentive. By 1982 Congress had
made its thinking clear through laws barring illegal aliens from
Supplemental Security Income and Aid to Families with Dependent
Children. In 1986, Congress did the same regarding nonemergency
Medicaid services.

In 1990 Congress created “Temporary Protected Status” for
legal or illegal aliens unable to return home because of
circumstances such as civil disorder. Congress doing something
like what PropositIon 187 would do, said people with this status
are ineligible for most federal benefits. And this year, in
providing disaster relief for California, Congress excluded
illegal aliens from almost all benefits.

The 1982 decision was part of a pattern of judicial
usurpations of state and local responsibilities. These
usurpations have involved courts supplanting democratic
institutions in formulating policies concerning pornography,
capital punishment, administration of prisons and mental health
facilities and public housing, abortion, school financing,
Christmas displays and many other matters. Yet critics of
Proposition 187, which is designed to force the Supreme Court to
reconsider Its 1982 usurpation regarding policy toward illegal
immigrants, seem scandalized that Californians are trying to
reclaim a right of self-determination.

Critics who denounce Proposition 187 as “immigrant bashing”
miss a point that evidently is not missed by the approximately 50
percent of California’s Hispanics who support it: Proposition
187 concerns not what national immigration policy should be, but
what state policy should be regarding violators of whatever the
national law Is.

Critics of Proposition 187 say, correctly, that government
by initiative undermines representative government, under which
the people do not decide issues; they decide who shall decide.
However, many critics of Proposition 187 are unoffended by
another subvention of representative government: judicial
policy-making. There probably would be no Proposition 187 If
elected officials, in Washington and Sacramento, had not been
corrupted by the culture of judicial activism and been delighted,
as the political class often is, to allow a court to take custody
of an inconvenient problem.

When Brennan discovered a new sweep for the 14th Amendment,
the amendment was 114 years old. When it was ratified, and for
.
Continued in the next message…

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10h
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 396/1 3603/141 270
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 20060 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (221)
To: All 2 Nov 94 10:58:00
Subject: ROYKO: CYBERCREEPS 01

Information superhighway crawling with sex creeps

MIKE ROYKO

The home computer industry is booming. And a female friend who
has spent time on the information superhighway believes she has
discovered a reason for its sudden popularity.

“Based on my experience and those of some friends,” she said,
“the computer world appeals to a significant segment of the male
population. They are the creeps. Or maybe in the computer
world, they should be called ‘cybercreeps,’ ”

The cybercreep, as she described him, is a person who uses
his computer and phone to connect to commercial on-line message
services or the vast Internet.

Then he hides behind a phony name – “his handle” – and says
things that would – probably get him punched In the face or or
arrested if he said them to someone in a public place.

He Is a high-tech version of a flasher or a telephone
breather – the Chester the Molester of the l990s.

“I’m used to it now,” says Patricia, the cybercreep expert.
“But when it first start ed happening, I thought: ‘Wow, this is
sort of like the Tailhook thing without the pinch marks.’

“As soon as they spot the handle of a woman, it starts. The
other night I got a message that said: ‘Hi, babe, want to talk
about sex, straight, oral, whatever you like?’

“In my entire life, I’ve never run into anyone in a bar or
anyplace else who has introduced himself that way.”

Of course not. If a stranger walked into a neighborhood
tavern and went up to the nearest female and said: “Hi, babe,
want to talk about sex, straight, oral, whatever you like?” it’s
possible that those men of the noncreep persuasion might react
chivalrously by knocking him down and jumping on his chest.

But while sitting in the privacy of his home, the cybercreep
can send off any message that emerges from the woolly
caterpillars nesting in his brain.

“I had one guy send me a message asking if I had any
clothes on,” Patricia said. “He wrote: ‘I don’t. Want me to
describe myself? You’ll be impressed.'”

“I believed him. Not about being impressed, but about
sitting there naked. I could lust see him, some lonely guy with
no chin and a flabby body like bread dough, sitting there with
old copies of Hustler and Playmate stacked up around him.

“Or maybe he’s married and his wife went to bed and he said
he is going to stay up In his den and work on some stuff he
brought home from the office. Then he sits there looking for
someone like me so he can breathe real hard.

“Really, ask any woman who goes on line where people don’t
have to use real names. If they use a handle that indicates they
are women, the cybercreeps come out like a swarm of horny
insects.

“So If I want to go on for a serious conversation,
information, or even for fun, I use a handle that makes it sound
like I’m a man. And an old man, because if you use one that
makes you sound like you are a young guy, maybe attractive, you
might get hit on by some other young guy. It can really be a zoo
out there.”

Actually, I’m not sure if that is an entirely bad thing.

Consider that there are well over 250 million people in this
country. It Is inevitable that several million of them will be
creeps of one kind or another. Mother Nature, a prankster at
times, seems to want it that way.

It is essential for a creep to express himself. Ask any
shrink. So the computer provides those millions of creeps who are
illiterate with a relatively harmless way of expressing their
creepiness.

.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (228)
To: Ed Criswell 2 Nov 94 13:26:00
Subject: FLOOD / NOAH’S AR 1/яяяяя

EC> Animal remains are found scattered all around the world in
EC> unexpected places. Unfortunately, the paradigm of evolution
EC> is so powerful in the scientific community that often what
EC> happens is that when something is found (i.e. fossilized
EC> remains) that does not fit into the evolutionary pattern it
EC> is “written off” using a variety of dubious reasons. I
EC> don’t believe this is usually done as part of some big
EC> cover-up but because scientists are like anyone else and
EC> often see only what they expect to see whether conciously
EC> or unconciously.

And just what examples of this do you have? I am interested
in reading of them. Please be specific.

EC> Another common occurence is the discovery of “burial
EC> grounds” of animals around the world in which many
EC> fossilized remains of multiple animal species are found in
EC> a relatively small area. A likely explanation for these
EC> are deposition of many dead animals at one time as might
EC> occur from a flood. Yes, a local flood could have
EC> accomplished this but often these remains of animals are
EC> both native and non-native to the region in which they were
EC> found thus pointing to the possibility that a worldwide
EC> flood has occured sometime in the past.

Save there are no such examples of “native and non-native”
being found in the same place. Of course, if you would like to
post examples of them please do so.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (229)
To: Ed Criswell 2 Nov 94 13:28:00
Subject: FLOOD / NOAH’S AR 1/яяяяя

EC> Quite the contrary, Mr. Steinberg. Many geologists report
EC> evidence for and strongly believe that a flood of worldwide
EC> or near-worldwide magnitude has occured in the past, though
EC> few would say that it was the Flood of the Bible the
EC> possible occurence of a deluge of that kind is not without
EC> support.

NAME them. There are “many” in your claim so naming them
should not be all that difficult for you. Or will you take the
lie of the ICR and simply repeat it? The latter of course. BTW:
The ICR has only been able to name its own purported members and
quote the rest out of context as they have done with Gould.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (230)
To: Christopher Ince 2 Nov 94 13:33:00
Subject: FLOOD / NOAH’S AR 1/яяяяя

CI> Who was talking about them. I referred to their story as a
CI> piece of evidence, and that the evidence is more recent.
CI> Yet, the story had to have been passed along many
CI> generations. Because the story was passed along many
CI> generations you might conceive the notion the story was
CI> inaccurate; however, both stories are strikingly similar.
CI> Both stories were passed along many generations. The
CI> evidence speaks, legal-historical evidence can NEVER be
CI> scientifically proven; which is what some demand. For
CI> instance, I believe Napoleon lived and was the emperor of
CI> France yet there is no videotaped footage of him, or
CI> documented photographs. Perhaps a portrait of a man who
CI> could be a painting of anyone, then fabled to be this
CI> legendary figure in history.

Regarding Napoleon there are literally millions of documents
regarding him from all over the world. The effects of his
existence are clear in modern European history. All of which is
lacking from accounts of anything in the Bible.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1. Kill them before they burn you alive.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (231)
To: Christopher Ince 2 Nov 94 13:35:00
Subject: FLOOD / NOAH’S AR 1/яя 01

CI> MG> Sorry, legends are legends and not evidence. Real
CI> MG> evidence consists of something we can still find
CI> MG> particularly of something of this magnitude.

CI> Legends are verbal and written accounts of events. The
CI> same as witnesses who testify with verbal recounting are
CI> considered evidence in a trial; and the same way written
CI> records are counted as evidence.

Written records in this case were created in the time of the
kings and are not even consistent with themselves indicating
their true origin in ignorant, tribal goat herders.

However, they report events of such impossible magnitude
that the consequences of their occurrence have to have left
physical evidence even IF all the impossible parts of the legend
can be explained away. The problem with Noah’s flood is that
after the first sentence everything is impossible, i.e. requiring
a miracle or three to explain away.

CI> MG> There never was any such thing so what is your point?
CI> MG> It happened, according to the Bible, in 2250 BC and we have
CI> MG> evidence of at least a dozen civilizations that were
CI> MG> continuous through that year.

CI> Please back these claims with sources. I already have,
CI> read a Koran at your local library to validify my claims.

Straight from your bible:
Read it and weep, FUNDIE!

Noah’s flood:
Let’s look at the Biblical dates. I Kings 6:1 says that 480 years
passed from the start of the Exodus to the start of construction on
the first temple by Solomon. Gal 3:17 says that 430 years passed from
the covenant with Abraham to the delivery of the Law to Moses. The
chapters of Genesis after the Flood account give the periods in years
that passed between the births of various individuals from Noah to
Abraham, giving a period of 390 years from the Flood to the covenant
with Abraham. Thus, according to the Bible, the Flood took place 1300
years before Solomon began construction of the first temple.

a) This is a clear, direct, falsifiable claim. These are
clear, unambiguous statements that a period of X years elapsed between
two events.

b) The event itself (a global Flood that wiped out all but 8
humans) would be pretty hard to miss or gloss over.

c) Because there were any number of literate cultures in the
near East, who recorded dynastic lists, raised monuments giving dates
and length of reigns, and sent ambassadors to each others’ courts, we
can pretty reliably construct chronologies for near Easter history,
particularly for Egypt, and without reference to (but supported by)
dating methods such as carbon-14 with corrections from tree-ring
sequences.

d) The upshot of which is that the building of the first
temple can be dated to 950 B.C. +- some small delta, placing the Flood
around 2250 B.C. Unfortunately, the Egyptians (among others) have
written records dating well back before 2250 B.C. (the Great Pyramid,
for example dates to the 26th century B.C., 300 years before the
Biblical date for the Flood). No sign in Egyptian inscriptions of this
global flood around 2250 B.C.

e) Therefore, either we have to reject the historicity of the
Flood account; accept the historicity of the Flood account, but
explain away the clear Biblical dating of the event; or accept the
Biblical account and chronology, and reject the massive amount of
written and archeological evidence estab- lishing the chronology of
history in the near East.

Bibliography:

Weber, Christopher Gregory, “The Fatal Flaws of Flood Geology”,
Creation/Evolution I (1980) pp 24-37.

Schadewald, Robert J., “Six ‘Flood’ Arguments Creationists Can’t
Answer”, Creation/Evolution IX (1982) pp 12-17.

CI> MG> CI> Also the Moslem religion? Which is where the other story
CI> MG> CI> came from, was created hundreds of years after the times
CI> MG> CI> of Christ.

CI> MG> If you never noticed, the Israelites and the Moslems
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (232)
To: Chris Boyd 2 Nov 94 13:45:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERN WORLD

CB> KF> God said that HE would never flood the earth like that
CB> KF> again. We remember that promise when we see a rainbow.

CB> What does he promise when I take a garden hose, shoot
CB> water in the air, and see a rainbow?

So you are claiming Noah invented the garden hose?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (233)
To: Ed Criswell 2 Nov 94 13:48:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяя 01

EC> For thorough and detailed answers to your questions obtain
EC> a copy of “The Genesis Flood” by Henry Morris. This book
EC> discusses the evidence for the Deluge and how the events
EC> surrounding Noah may have taken place. Hope this helps. 🙂

Origin: MERCOPUS – 0623 – Evolution-F
From: DAVID BLOOMBERG Public
To: JACK BRANNAN
Date: 08/09/94 at 20:02
Re: Flood Problems
——————————————————————————-
——————–
I have forwarded your latest comments back to Mark Isaak. Also, he sent me an
updated verson of that article, which I’ll post in the next few messages here.
A great deal will be the same as the older one, but it has some new stuff in
it:
Problems With a Global Flood
(last modified 7/27/94)
Mark Isaak [email protected]

(Email comments and contributions to this collection are welcome. I would
especially like to add more references.)

Creationist models are often criticized for being too vague to have any
predictive value. A literal interpretation of the Flood story in Genesis,
however, does imply certain physical consequences which can be tested
against what we actually observe. Most, if not all, observations, discredit
the flood hypothesis, as you can see from what follows. (Most the the
arguments below are based only on a literal reading of Genesis, but some
specifically refer to the flood model of Whitcomb & Morris [1961].) Can any
Creationists address even half of the points in this list?

Before the flood:
How did animals travel from all over the world?
* Some, like the sloths, can’t travel overland very well at all.
* Some, like koalas, require a special diet. How did they bring it
along?
* Some, like the dodo, must have lived on islands. (If they didn’t,
they would have been easy prey for other animals.)
If animals all lived fairly close to Noah before the flood (as
Whitcomb & Morris suggest), how were they all able to survive the
predation and competition pressures from all the others, and why
doesn’t evidence of their living together show up in fossil
distributions?
How was the ark loaded? The Bible says all the animals were all loaded in
seven days [Gen. 7:4]. Even if there were only 9 million species to
be loaded, there would have to be an average of 30 animals per
second going through the ark’s one door.
How was the ark made seaworthy? The longest wooden ships in modern seas
are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps
and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450
feet long [Gen. 6:15].

Life on the ark:
How did all the different species fit on the ark? 10 million species is a
reasonable estimate of species presently alive (though estimates
vary widely; see May, 1992). They all would have had to fit in
about 100,000 square feet of deck space [Gen. 6:15-16]. Since most
animals are small, they probably could have all fit, but only if you
allow very little room around them. Caged animals probably wouldn’t
all fit, nor would the animals have any room to exercise. The
dinosaurs, mastodons, and other now-extinct animals would have been
aboard the ark as well [Gen. 7:15; Morris, 1993], and they would
take up a _lot_ of room. Bracings, corridors, bilges, etc. would
have taken up a lot of room, too. If you hypothesize significantly
fewer species on the ark than now exist, you must explain evolution
rates faster than any evolutionists propose to account for all the
present species.
How did Noah supply food and water for all the animals for a year? [Gen.
6:21] Food for a year would have taken up many times the space of
the animals themselves. (I know of no animals, except some desert
amphibians, that hibernate for anywhere close to a year.)
How was the food kept fresh for a year? (Aphids, e.g., can’t eat wilted
plants.)
What did the carnivorous animals eat, especially those which require fresh
meat?
How did creatures needing special environments survive on the ark?
How do you explain how all host-specific parasites/diseases made do with
only one pair of hosts (and if they did OK, how the hosts survived!)
How was the ark kept livable? Shoveling the manure of the ungulates alone
must have been a full time job for eight people.
How well ventilated was the ark? The body heat from millions of closely
packed animals must have been very intense.

The flood:
Where did the water come from? (It would take 4.4 billion cubic
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (234)
To: Fred Garvin 2 Nov 94 13:50:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

FG> KF> Isn’t God wonderful! He can do all that and more. 🙂

FG> He did what? Pick those critters up and fly them to South
FG> America? Did he use a transporter like they have on Star
FG> Trek?

Chartered Passenger Pigeons

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Of the people, by the people, and for the people or else!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (235)
To: Katherine Fatherley 2 Nov 94 13:51:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

KF> KF> Isn’t God wonderful! He can do all that and more. 🙂
KF> FG>
KF> FG> He did what? Pick those critters up and fly them to South
KF> FG> America? Did he use a transporter like they have on Star
KF> FG> Trek?

KF> God knows no limitations. In a thought …He can
KF> create a universe. What a mighty God I serve!

He can do all that and still had to rely on water? Why?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in Charge of Corpus Crispy OPS.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (239)
To: Fred Garvin 2 Nov 94 14:34:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

On 10/31/94 FRED GARVIN to ED CRISWELL on Flooding the Modern

FG> EC> For thorough and detailed answers to your questions obtain
FG> EC> a copy of “The Genesis Flood” by Henry Morris. This book
FG> EC> discusses the evidence for the Deluge and how the events
FG> EC> surrounding Noah may have taken place. Hope this helps. 🙂

FG> I don’t have the time, nor the inclination, to search for
FG> this book. (In other words, I’m too cheap). Can you post
FG> some of his main points?

You write as though you think he actually read it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (240)
To: Paul West 2 Nov 94 14:38:00
Subject: CAPITOL 800 NUMBER

PW> MG> That might make nice public relations but they nearly do.
PW> MG> Get some FAX software and compose a one page letter and
PW> MG> send it after midnight or on weekends. It should be under
PW> MG> 15 cents from any place in the continental US. Certainly
PW> MG> cheaper than a post card. That way you do not get to be
PW> MG> filter through the call taker and you get what they say
PW> MG> they want, simple and to the point.

PW> It may be cheaper but what do you do about the
PW> Congressman’s secretary walking into the office in the
PW> morning, picking up the pile of faxes and immediately
PW> depositing them into the trash can?

And you think the same think can not happen with anything
sent? Why? Hint: Once the Post Office has delivered it to the
right address, what happens after it is not their business. That
is, a secretary assumes no subsequent liability for delivery.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (241)
To: Ken Pangborn 2 Nov 94 14:40:00
Subject: CATHOLIC “ARMY”

KP> KP> How many attempts have there been in recent decades
KP> KP> on the lives of the Pope and Cardinals? ….. THAT is
KP> KP> reason enough!

KP> MG> Why would Mussolini have tried it? Pius XII armed the Swiss
KP> MG> Guard with submachineguns for the duration.

KP> What’s Moussolini got to do with this?

The Swiss Guard was armed against both the Fascists and the
Nazis with SMGs. You were making the point they were more than
ceremonially armed. I am simply giving you a rather well known
example.

KP> KP> The Swiss Guard? They are the equivalent of the
KP> KP> U.S. “Secret Service.” Their job is to be body guards to
KP> KP> the Pope, Cardinals, and other church officials and
KP> KP> buildings. Uniforms are ceremonial.

KP> MG> The weapons are available and as with all Swiss they are
KP> MG> trained in their use. There is simply no need to display
KP> MG> them without provocation.

KP> Sure there is, just as you sometimes see our Secret
KP> Service display their weapons, to remind wouldbe terrorists
KP> that they will get blown away if they try.

And where were these folks when the Pope was shot a few
years ago? Who wrestled him to the ground? If they were
bodyguards they were not identified as such. And I can not
imagine the US press playing down such a story.

KP> KP> For the same reasons the U.S. needs an Army. But in
KP> KP> this case the “Army” is a body guard service. You
KP> KP> completely misrepresent it.

KP> MG> However, it does present a first line of defense on the
KP> MG> outside if needed. It does not function exactly like the
KP> MG> Secret Service.

KP> It doesn’t? In what ways doesn’t it?

The “swiss guard” we see in the pictures is a palace guard.
It guards the building and access to it rather than the person.
I have no idea who actually guards the person, presumably the
best bodyguards they can find regardless of national origin.
When Il Pape shows his face around the world there are thousands
of pictures taken. Have you ever seen dark suits in sunglasses
around him?

We are sort of left with an image the surrounding Cardinals
having been trained to kick ass for the Lord.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (242)
To: Ken Pangborn 2 Nov 94 14:48:00
Subject: JAPAN NUKED 01

KP> MG> As “Bull” Halsey said upon returning to Pearl Harbor after
KP> MG> the attack, “When this is over the Japanese language will
KP> MG> only be spoken in hell.” It was a common sentiment. My
KP> MG> father was in Hawaii after having taken Guadalcanal (the
KP> MG> FIRST US offensive in WW II) and getting ready to invade
KP> MG> Japan. I had been conceived before then. It matters to
KP> MG> me.

KP> So you concur with the use of the nukes?

As does anyone not playing bleed heart liberal revisionist.

KP> MG> Even though FDR did start the war in my mind, war is a
KP> MG> matter of the gut and not of reason. Japan could have
KP> MG> checked FDR’s move with an attack upon and occupation of
KP> MG> Saipan or Guam rather than Pearl Harbor and not invited the
KP> MG> third cut.

KP> I’ve heard this FDR started the war gambit before.
KP> But somehow the premise always seems to ignore the military
KP> conquest of Southeast Asia, Malaysia, Manchuria, and most
KP> of China in the most brutal way. Yes I suppose that FDR’s
KP> displeasure with Japan’s invasion of China really pissed
KP> off the Japs and made them want to bomb Pearl Harbor. But I
KP> am sorry if I see that as twisted logic. Rather reminds me
KP> of the rapist blaming the victim’s husband for objecting!

There is no serious question that FDR moved to such off
Japan’s access to SE Asian oil which at the time was its only
source. To make that stick the US needed a Naval presence in the
Pacific.

The second requirement of a Naval presence is having bases
from which to use it that encompass the entire controlled area.
That it, not leaving naval forces at your back. (This was
violated in the island hopping approach toward Japan but US
seapower was overwhelming at that point it hardly mattered.)

The rational thing for Japan to have done would have been to
invade Hawaii after the attack. Failing that it not have
bothered but rather taken a forward island again such as Guam or
the Philippines and used it for a Naval base. This would have
left the US with regaining the Philippines first else have the
Japanese Navy it back.

That would not have incurred the huge backlash of US public
opinion and would have prevented the US from enforcing the oil
cut off and supplying the British and French in SE Asia. It
could also have neutralized Australia as it would have set limits
to Japanese expansion interests and perhaps England (and thus
Australia in those days) out of the war against Japan.

And this could all have been done with a formal declaration
of war delivered fair and square which would not have filled the
recruiting offices the next morning. It would have been an
“honorable” war and one in which negotiations were possible.

KP> MG> On the other hand, if they had caught the carriers dockside
KP> MG> they would have won.

KP> Nope. I disagree. The war would have been tougher.
KP> And would have taken longer. And taken scads more lives.
KP> But in the end we would still have won. The outcome isn’t
KP> at issue here. Japan had LOST the war on December 6th 1941.
KP> The date of Japanese surrender wasn’t settled yet. As we
KP> know today, Japan never intended to invade Hawaii or the
KP> west coast of the U.S…. So the fact is that we could have
KP> built new carriers in rather rapid order, which was the
KP> case. All it would have done was made the war more
KP> difficult and costly.

Where it not for great good fortune in the Battle of Midway
(?) where the US broke the back of the Japanese Fleet and there
is no way to consider it more than good luck to have evened the
odds with battleships in that one battle. Had they taken Hawaii
at the same time then any response would have had to have been
from the West Coast.

That would have made it easier to make it a land war from
Siberia down through Manchuria, diverting US Army forces from
Normandy either putting that off or causing it to fail. And
again, the success at Normandy due to the Germans being prepared
at Calais. In time they could have fortified both.

With the need for a land war through Manchuria it is
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (243)
To: All 2 Nov 94 16:56:00
Subject: CRIMINAL ALIENS 01

Payment for Federal Criminals
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/2>

Proposition 187 in California is hardly more than than a
blip in the real confrontation we are facing with the federal
government. This referendum is to end the federal government’s
forcing the states to provide state welfare benefits to people in
violation of federal law, specifically illegal aliens. As states
can not establish immigration laws nor enforce the federal laws,
the states are acting at the mandated will of the federal
government to give benefits to violators of federal law.
This is in no way different from mandating the states
provide all state benefits to federal prisoners housed within
the states. Think of the money it would save the federal
government were all federal prisoners to be put on medicaid.
Consider the savings from having their “housing” subsidized by
rent supplements. And were prisoners to give food stamps to
prisoners it would save the federal government enormous amounts
of money.
And in requiring states to give benefits to aliens in
violation of federal law the federal government is acting no
differently. It is also no different from requiring the states
to provide defense attorney’s to those indicted for federal
crimes when the trial is to be in their state. Not only that but
while we are at it, why not require the states to provide
suitable and free housing for those arrested for federal crimes
in those states?
The issue here is very clear. The states are being required
to pay people, support people, provide near eternal benefits to
people who are in direct violation of federal law. It is not as
though we are talking about drug smugglers who could simply be
arrested and put away at government expense. These are violators
who are permitted to continue to live in the country at mandated
state expense.
Of course some of them do work for a living and pay sales
tax and all the other direct and hidden taxes of the states but
then if those are mitigating factors why does it not mitigate the
sentence of those who take a few shots at the president? You and
I certainly do our best to avoid violating federal law and we do
not justify doing so by saying we pay state taxes. Yet that
“defense” has been presented on more than one news report.
This issue goes beyond California. Florida was the first
and then joined by California and Texas in suing the federal
government for the cost of supporting these violators of federal
law. It was only in late September this year that US District
Judge Edward Davis held the case could go to trial. Florida
argues forcing Florida to pay for the health and education
expenses of those in violation of federal law is the same as
“commandeering the state’s resources.” “The abdication by the
United States of its policy has unleashed a flood of undocumented
aliens upon this state, and the state has to deal with them
because they’re here.”
The best response the federal government could come up with
was, blaming the Immigration and Naturalization Service because
some illegal immigrants escape detection is akin to blaming the
police for not catching every criminal. This simply ignores the
is not of catching them but paying for those who are known to be
in violation of federal law and to whom the federal government
will do nothing much less send them back where they came from.
But does not “sending them back where they came from” sound
a bit racist? Perhaps, but a completely non-racist sounding
statement is to put them in prison for ten years or so as a
penalty for violating our immigration laws. Let those whose
hearts bleed take their choice of penalties but remember, their
children will still be sent back without parents.
There are serious reasons to accept the concept of nations
without borders worldwide and I accept them completely. What I
do not accept is the extension of the social safety net to
non-citizens. That is primarily as I am against the social
safety net in the first place but if it exists then there must be
limits to it. Without such limits we have the classic example of
migration between the states of the United States where people
will move for the best welfare benefits.
The only social benefit the US was founded upon was
opportunity not medical care — medical care the current
administration says middle class working Americans can not
afford. The US was certainly not founded upon free education in
the language of one’s parents particularly when those parents are
in criminal violation of federal law.
No matter how the heart bleeds for the children their
parents are unindicted federal felons toward whom the federal
government has taken a “catch as catch can” attitude toward
prosecuting and the penalty for being caught it deportation not
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941109 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (169)
To: Scot Bear 6 Nov 94 00:49:00
Subject: FACE ON AIDS, PART 2яяяяя

SB> > This is hardly the conference to get nasty and I have
SB> > not done so, not even come close. That my choice of words
SB> > is not euphemistic enough for you, I can not help that.

SB> I don’t give a flying fuck just WHAT you think, Mr.
SB> Giwer… You are an insensitive clod. Euphemisms be damned!
SB> We are talking HUMANS here; not statistics, money or
SB> quotas.
SB>
SB> May you rot.

Is this one of those “oh so sensitive” statements from the
reality impaired?

We are talking humans who for the most part were
deliberately infected by other humans and who have gone on to
infect other humans. That is the ONLY way the disease can be
spreading at even its current diminished rate.

That is the way it is. The cause and transmission has been
known save to the Forrest Gumps of the world for ten years now.
Give it a rest.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Hansen Brothers; my kind of debaters.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 101 201 224 246 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 396/1 3603/141 270
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 20060 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (170)
To: Ken Pangborn 6 Nov 94 00:57:00
Subject: CATHOLIC “ARMY”

KP> MG> The Swiss Guard was armed against both the Fascists and the
KP> MG> Nazis with SMGs. You were making the point they were more
KP> MG> than ceremonially armed. I am simply giving you a rather
KP> MG> well known example.

KP> And all 2,000 of them would hold off the entire
KP> Wehrmacht? Boy they must all have 30 foot schlongs too!
KP> I’ll bet Adolph just PEE’D his britches with a threat like
KP> that. Matt….. 2 Panzers and 15 minutes!

2000 of them fully armed were at least 100 times better
armed and positioned than the Warsaw Ghetto which held out for
the magic 51 days.

That is not to mention inciting at least 50% of the Italian
population to a homicidal rage against them.

KP> MG> And where were these folks when the Pope was shot a few
KP> MG> years ago? Who wrestled him to the ground? If they were
KP> MG> bodyguards they were not identified as such. And I can not
KP> MG> imagine the US press playing down such a story.

KP> Wait just a minute ago you had these FIERCE Swiss
KP> Guards with their SMG’s defeating the Wehrmacht…. Now
KP> they couldn’t wrestle one KGB loonie to the ground? I
KP> thought thise Crossbacks were the scourge of the planet,
KP> threatening civilization as we know it? You mean the Pope
KP> DOESN’T have them poised to invade China?

I am saying they did not because they are not bodyguards.
Bodyguards are provided by the state being visited as a matter of
international courtesy. That he got hit while running barefoot
in his own country is his problem.

KP> MG> The “swiss guard” we see in the pictures is a palace guard.
KP> MG> It guards the building and access to it rather than the
KP> MG> person. I have no idea who actually guards the person,
KP> MG> presumably the best bodyguards they can find regardless of
KP> MG> national origin. When Il Pape shows his face around the
KP> MG> world there are thousands of pictures taken. Have you ever
KP> MG> seen dark suits in sunglasses around him?

KP> Matt to tell you the truth, I haven’t been looking.
KP> And I’m not sure they dress as obviously as the Secret
KP> Service does.

The only way to explain not being able to describe how they
do dress is that they have not had occasion to act else they
would be on camera as much as they were wrestling Fromm and
Hinckley to the ground in failed attempts. As it is we have no
pictures, period. They must be as secret and effective as the
Mossad.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4. The Feds can get away with it.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (171)
To: Ken Pangborn 6 Nov 94 01:08:00
Subject: JAPAN NUKED 01

KP> The Japanese never seriously considered attacking Hawaii.

KP> MG> Where it not for great good fortune in the Battle of Midway
KP> MG> (?) where the US broke the back of the Japanese Fleet and
KP> MG> there is no way to consider it more than good luck to have
KP> MG> evened the odds with battleships in that one battle. Had
KP> MG> they taken Hawaii at the same time then any response would
KP> MG> have had to have been from the West Coast.

KP> Yes, but all the loss of Midway would have meant
KP> was adding another year to the war. The end was never
KP> really in doubt. The whole deal was getting Japan to agree
KP> to surrender. That didn’t happen till mid AUgust, 1945.

Cutting out the failure to take advantage of the gains in
the Pearl Harbor attack (that is the purpose of an attack, not
the initial victory but the advantage) and ignoring the course of
the war were the nearest oiler point in California does not deal
with the question.

No ship wants to go into battle with less than 90% bunker
and Hawaii was 50% bunker away from California and from Alaska.
No sane Navy would consider combat with under 70% fuel. Insane
only wins battles in the movies.

Had they taken Hawaii it would not have been a Naval war any
more than Europe was a Naval war.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (172)
To: All 6 Nov 94 02:11:00
Subject: A DISHONEST STATEMENT

I agree it was a cheap trick, posting a Hitler maybe not
even real quote in place of a Clinton quote. Then of course
posting the real Clinton quote after everyone insisted it was a
Hitler quote.

OK. You got me. I lied. I faked it. I cheated.

But was I wrong?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * It is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (173)
To: All 6 Nov 94 02:30:00
Subject: WHITE HOUSE ATTACK

Godfather II

If history has taught us anything it is that anyone can be
killed.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If you wish peace, prepare for war.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (174)
To: All 6 Nov 94 02:46:00
Subject: GUN CONTROL

CM> > Only because you haven’t been abused by seeing Rex’s
CM> > theory. That theory is that ALL guns and their owners
CM> > should be banned. To Rex, possession of any firearm is
CM> > criminal, no matter WHO you are.

CM> It just amazes me that one cannot seem to realize the
CM> simple facts that if all guns were banned, the law abiding
CM> citizens would turn them in.

But we will not. Save for the grandfather clause in the
1994 crime bill there would be 12 million federal criminals right
now. And they would not be guaranteed welfare benefits as though
they were Mexican.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Intruder? Shoot first, then talk.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (175)
To: Scott Summers 6 Nov 94 03:11:00
Subject: MATT GIWER

SS> After a moment of reflection,Scot Bear shared this insight with All

SS> > Matt Giwer has been banned from the conference. Please
SS> > refrain from answering his messages. I am dealing with his
SS> > attempts to get around the ban.
SS> >
SS> > Bert Sainz, Moderator, AIDS_HIV
SS> SB>
SS> SB> Mr. Giwer seems to have developed foot-in-mouth disease in AIDS_HIV
SS> also.
SS> SB> 🙂

SS> And what do you think the odds might be that he did that on
SS> puropse, genius?

Do I get to make the book?

More seriously the idiot moderator pretending to suggest I
was threatening a law suit in order to invoke Fido-4. (message
upon request) Of course Sainz is a liar but then honesty is not
a requirement for being a moderator.

If you would like a list of lying moderators you only need
ask, start with all the eco, enviro, animal conference
moderators. They all feel compelled to invent a reason for
banning rather than simply exercising their power to without
question or regard to reason.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco! Never again! Vote Libertarian!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (176)
To: All 6 Nov 94 03:41:00
Subject: 40% == 60% DEAD

Women in Combat
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/5>

Let us put this straight up front. I do not not like the
idea of the subject of this message, period, over, out.
With that out of the way we have to discuss what is
currently the military standard for women. That standard is 40%
of the standard for men.
NO!
I am not interested in discussing the details. I am not
interested in anything related to the matter other than war.
War takes no prisoners. War makes no distinction between
sexes. The female force is in fact 40% capable against a 100%
capable enemy. Enough said.
Why? To get women killed is the only justification I can
find. If the point of the feminist movement is to create female
heroines then I would rather have live ones than dead ones.
I frankly like my women alive and I also like them taking
care of my children and hopefully our children. Women are nice
people to have around. Enough sarcasm?
If they really are capable to the same standards as the
enemy, not to us, but the enemy then let them win their combat
kills.
But in no way send them into combat being only 40% qualified
against the enemy.
There being the point. In no way has any combat experience
been against the 40% training. Reality is always against the
100% enemy.
Is this really intended to send women to the slaughter?
If not, tell me the difference.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (177)
To: All 6 Nov 94 03:43:00
Subject: 40% = 60% DEAD

Women in Combat
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/5>

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto “Let God sort out the innocent!”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (178)
To: Jim Higgins 6 Nov 94 05:16:00
Subject: ‘THE BELL CURVE’

JH> MG> If it is all true, the race differences are “statistically
JH> MG> insignificantly” different in terms of IQ test results.
JH> MG> Why all the crap I have no idea.

JH> The difference is very real, and it is significant in a
JH> statistical sense. But if you had really read the book you
JH> would know that the connection of race to IQ is a product
JH> of dispassionate data analysis, not by any means the main
JH> point.

I really do not give a rat’s ass about any trivial 15 or 30
or even 45 point difference.

I am very dispassionate.

There is nothing in the book that applies to me.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (179)
To: Bert Byfield 6 Nov 94 05:52:00
Subject: DEATH IN HIROSHIMA (3/3)

BB> JW> which they were targets and in a war in which bombing
BB> JW> was an inexact art at best.

BB> They were not targets very often in August of 1945. The
BB> war was over. The terms were being negotiated.

Rather, the only error was that the Japanese language is
still spoken on earth. I agree with Halsey.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941111 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (29)
To: Bert Sainz 8 Nov 94 19:38:00
Subject: MATT GIWER

BS> Matt Giwer has been banned from the conference. Please
BS> refrain from answering his messages. I am dealing with his
BS> attempts to get around the ban.

What attempts are you talking about?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Hansen Brothers; my kind of debaters.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (38)
To: All 8 Nov 94 21:43:00
Subject: STATE 2ND AMENDMENTS 01

There was some discussion of the matter of the right to keep
and bear arms regarding the states. I have finally found a file.

=============================
Forty-three (43) states have constitutional guarantees
on the right to keep and bear arms.

ALABAMA: “That every citizen has a right to bear arms
in defense of himself and the state.” Ala. Const. art. I,
S 26

ALASKA: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Alaska Const. art.
I, S 19

ARIZONA: “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms
in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired,
but nothing in this section shall be construed as
authorizing individuals or corporations to organize,
maintain, or employ an armed body of men.” Ariz. Const.
art. 2, S 26

ARKANSAS: “The citizens of this state shall have the right
to keep and bear arms for their common defense.” Ark.
Const. art. II, S 5

COLORADO: “The right of no person to keep and bear arms in
defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the
civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called
in question; but nothing herein contained shall be
construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed
weapons.” Colo. Const. art. II, S 13

CONNECTICUT: “Every citizen has the right to bear arms in
defense of himself and the state.” Conn. Const. art. I,
S 15

DELAWARE: “A person has the right to keep and bear arms
for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for
hunting and recreational use.” Del. Const. art. I, S 20

FLORIDA: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms in
defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the
state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of
bearing arms may be regulated by law.” Fla. Const. art.
I, S 8

GEORGIA: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall
have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may
be borne.” Ga. Const. art. I, S I, para. VIII

HAWAII: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep
and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Haw. Const. art I,
S 15

IDAHO: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms,
which right shall not be abridged; but this provision
shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the
carrying of weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent
passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for
crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor
prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the
possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent
the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm.
No law shall impose licensure, registration or special
taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or
ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of
firearms, except those actually used in the commission of
a felony.” Idaho Const. art. I, S 11

ILLINOIS: “Subject only to the police power, the right of
the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.” Ill. Const. art. I, S 22

INDIANA: “The people shall have a right to bear arms, for
the defense of themselves and the State.” Ind. Const.
art. I, S 32

KANSAS: “The people have the right to bear arms for their
defense and security; but standing armies, in time of
peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be
tolerated, and the military shall be in strict
subordination to the civil power.” Kansas Bill Of Rights,
S 4

KENTUCKY: “All men are, by nature, free and equal, and
have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which
may be reckoned: …. Seventh: The right to bear arms in
defense of themselves and the state, subject to the power
of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons
from carrying concealed weapons.” Ky. Bill Of Rights,
S 1, para. 7

LOUISIANA: “The right of each citizen to keep and bear
arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not
prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of
weapons concealed on the person.” La. Const. art. I, S 11

MAINE: “Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms
and this right shall never be questioned.” Me. Const.
art. I, S16

MASSACHUSETTS: “The people have a right to keep and bear
arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace,
armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be
maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the
military power shall always be held in exact subordination
to the civil authority, and be governed by it.” Mass.
Decl. Of Rights, pt. I, art. XVII

MICHIGAN: “Every person has a right to keep and bear arms
for the defense of himself and the state.” Mich. Const.
art. I, S 6

MISSISSIPPI: “The right of every citizen to keep and bear
arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in
aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned,
shall not be called in question, but the legislature may
regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons.” Miss.
Const. art. 3, S 12

MISSOURI: “That the right of every citizen to keep and
bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or
when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall
not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing
of concealed weapons.” Mo. Const. art. I, S 23

MONTANA: “The right of any person to keep or bear arms in
defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid
of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall
not be called in question, but nothing herein contained
shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed
weapons.” Mont. Const. art. II, S 12

NEBRASKA: “All persons are by nature free and independent,
and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among
these are … the right to keep and bear arms for security
or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for
lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all
other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied
or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.”
Neb. Const. art. I, S 1
.
Continued in the next message…

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (42)
To: Scot Bear 9 Nov 94 01:13:00
Subject: ‘THE BELL CURVE’

SB> > SB> > What is clearly missing is the idea of mental
SB> > maturity.
SB> >
SB> > SB> I’m glad that you *finally* recognized that about yourself,
SB> >
SB> > SB> Matty. Now you can get help.
SB> >
SB> > You are so cute when you are trying to be clever.

SB> I *know*…. [patting self on back] I’m *still* too sexy for this
SB> conference. 🙂

I have always found people who lead with their sexual
preference to be rather strange.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (43)
To: Ed Criswell 9 Nov 94 01:14:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

EC> Thank you for the information. Let me respond: I) The
EC> article criticizes creationists for being too vague. I find
EC> this criticism to be vague. In my readings of evolutionist
EC> literature I have found criticism of creationism to fall
EC> into two basic categories:

The first question has to be, what have you read?

EC> 1) An evolutionist simply declares evolution to be fact,
EC> attacks creationism in some non-specific way and
EC> concludes that creationists are lunatics for not
EC> accepting this. Steve Gould calls them “yahoos”. This
EC> is most common style of criticism.

So? Evolution is a fact. That comes from geology. The
theory of evolution is something else entirely. The theory is
the only common element in the entire field of biology.

There are in fact only two books (which someone else is
going to have to name) which deal with creationists directly.
The issue is NOT the form of criticism as there is not much else
to say. Creationists do not defend creationism. Rather they
attack evolution with a pack of repetitive and very ignorant
lies. What are they to be called when they say things that a
basic education in science would refute?

EC> 2) When an evolutionist does get specific about his
EC> argument, more more often than not those same
EC> arguments can be equally applied evolutionary theory.

Then you will certainly have to give examples of what you
are talking about as this does not make much sense.

EC> II) The article says creationism has no predictive value.
EC> The same can be said of evolutionary theory. It is
EC> built on highly speculative, unobserved processes.

Why would you say this when everyone knows evolution is
highly predictive and quite accurate in its predictions?
Further, the ability to predict is NOT essential to a science
being a science so why would you bother considering this a
substantive point even if it were true?

EC> III) The list of questions are quite reasonable. ICR has
EC> addressed many of them, it may not be to your
EC> satisfaction but reasoable attempts have been made.

I have only read flat out lies from the ICR and have never
read a truthful statement from them. What do you consider to
have been truthful?

EC> But heres the problem: the Bible is (at this time) the
EC> only source of information we have of Noa and the
EC> events surrounding the Flood. Unfortunately, the
EC> account provides little in the way of details.

It makes very, very specific claims regarding events for
which there is absolutely zero evidence.

The
EC> one exception is the question of where the water came
EC> from. The Bible clearly states that before the Flood
EC> there was a canopy of water hanging over the earth.
EC> When the Flood came, this water was released.

I have read the bible and there is NO SUCH STATEMENT in it.
Now if you you like to cite the C&V and type in the verse for it
you are free to do so. BUT you will not find any reference to
the “water canopy” any place. You will try to foist off Gen 1:2
as a reference to one but that will not suffice to explain where
1875369829703.1775100 cubic miles of water came from or where it
went.

You will also have to explain how it “hung” over the earth
without being in orbit. If in orbit you will have to explain how
it could have been all over the earth in violation of all known
orbital dynamics. You will then have to explain why it suddenly
fell from orbit. Then you will have to explain why that event
did not destroy all life on earth.

While you are busy trying to explain all of these impossible
things remember, were the air completely saturated with water
from the surface to the edge of the atmosphere it can old no more
than one inch of water. Therefore do not try to get away with
saying it was in the air.

Believe
EC> it or not. As for the rest, any attempt to answer the
EC> these questions would require speculation and in some
EC> cases probably the invocation of the supernatural.

You canopy is already very supernatural as it does not obey
known laws of the universe. Therefore everything about the story
is supernatural.

EC> The prior is useful in scientific pursuit but can not
EC> be considered fact while the latter is anathema to
EC> most of today’s scientists and would be essentially
EC> useless in supporting a scientific theory. However,
EC> this does not mean the Flood did not occur.

What reality means is there is absolutely no evidence that
any flood occured. And that is enough to discount the entire
story as a story told to children around the campfire by
ignorant, goatherding tribesmen.

One could,
EC> in the same manner, assemble a list of questions about
EC> evolutionary theory that evolutionists are unable to
EC> address in an empirical way. Yet, they cling to their
EC> theory as fervently as any religious zealot does to
EC> his religion.

Q: Why do you not prepare that list?

Ans: You don’t know enough about the subject to do it.

EC> IV) On the subject of geologic evidence for the Flood, we
EC> will have to call a stalemate because you distrust my
EC> sources and I yours. 🙂

Your sources are admitted liars. So why would you believe
yours?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain. Bill Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (44)
To: Thomas Banks 9 Nov 94 01:43:00
Subject: LIMBAUGH ECHO

TB> Matt, what happened to you on the LIMBAUGH Echo?

Checked and I did not have it on the list. Thanks.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages. FBI at Waco.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941112 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (72)
To: Walt Stone 9 Nov 94 15:06:00
Subject: BIBLICAL PROOF

WS> I would call the first humans Adam and Eve. And I would
WS> agree with calling where they first lived the Garden of
WS> Eden, if that makes you pleased.
WS>
WS> Some time ago I read a little about how some have explained
WS> the split amongst what we now call various races and
WS> cultures.
WS>
WS> I didn’t buy that or many other historical tidbits prior to
WS> Exodus.

Why would you accept Exodus? There is no more evidence for
it than Genesis.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain. Bill Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (73)
To: Thomas Mccullock 9 Nov 94 15:12:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

TM> Acutally, the US Supreme Court struck down a very similar
TM> law in Texas, about a decade ago (Plyler vs. Doe) stating
TM> that it denied equal protection for the aliens, as well as
TM> the citizens. Since there is already a precident, this
TM> proposition is just another waste of time and tax payer’s
TM> money.

There is a different Supreme Court these days.

Maybe this one has some sense.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Flame on!” — Janet “The Torch” Reno

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (74)
To: Linda Terrell 9 Nov 94 15:15:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

LT> and if they are citizens, you cannot deport them. But.
LT> . .what if their parents are illegals? Deport the parents
LT> and foster the citizen child?

The kids can come back as citizens when they are adults.
Until then, they better brush up on their Spanish.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain. Bill Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (77)
To: All 9 Nov 94 16:13:00
Subject: NEWS YOU MAY HAVE MISSED

Washington Times

2 November 1994

Canada cuts quota on migrants

OTTAWA — Canada said yesterday it is reducing, for the
first time in a decade, the number of immigrants it will accept
and that preference will be given to skilled workers and
businessmen.

Immigration and Citizenship Minister Sergio Marchi said the
immigration quota will be reduced to between 190,000 and 215,000
in 1995; this year’s target was 250,000.

Canada was built by European settlers but increased its flow
of immigrants threefold since 1985 by taking in increasing
numbers of Asians, particularly from Hong Kong.

Economic recession, high unemployment and a fiscal crisis
have led to more calls from conservatives to cut immigration and
stop immigrants from living off welfare.

Racist groups have become outspoken in blaming rising urban
crime on excessive immigration.

U.S. hits tanks in Kuwait exercise

Adera Range, Kuwait — B-1 and B-52 bombers flew nonstop
from bases in the United States and bombed the Kuwaiti desert
yesterday to remind Iraq of the global reach of U.S. military
power following a flare-up of tension at the site of the Gulf
War.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (78)
To: Dick Roebelt 9 Nov 94 16:17:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

DR> TM> Congress cannot be “pressured” into redefining what it means
DR> TM> to be “born”. Any law they might attempt to pass to make
DR> TM> such a redefinition would be subject to the US Supreme
DR> TM> Court, which is going to look at what A14 clearly states.

DR> Well if Congress passes a law defining ‘born’ to mean
DR> only those who were born to parents legally in this country
DR> at the time of birth (as a good many voters are demanding)
DR> it would, indeed, be interesting to see how the current
DR> court would rule.

Although Congress is regularly passing laws that redefine
reality it is not the way to do things. Clearly the Constitution
is in need of further amendment to correct the matter.

14th Amendment
Sect. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
~~~~~~~~~~~~
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges
or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without
due process of law, nor deny any person within its jurisdiction
the equal protection of the laws.

DR> After all the Constitution gives the “power to enforce”
DR> to the Congress. Can the Supremes overrule the Constitution
DR> if Congress says our power is absolute per the
DR> Constitution?

Would you care to quote what you are talking about?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain. Bill Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (108)
To: All 10 Nov 94 02:21:00
Subject: THE 1994 ELECTIONS

The 1994 Election
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/10>

It is not very hard to see what happened this election day.
President Clinton the the Democrats were given full and complete
credit for what they have accomplished. And the voters have said
they do not look what they have done.
Every Democrat was tied to President Clinton’s coattails and
the entire Congress was changed. It was not a vote against
incumbents as no incumbent Republicans lost in Congress or in the
states. It was in fact a clear statement that the Clinton and
democrat liberal accomplishments are rejected.
This is no different from Bush being rejected in 1992. Bush
promised something and he was rejected with full credit given for
what he had accomplished.
What we have here is the rather cynical attitude on both
sides that people will in fact always vote their pocketbooks. The
idea that incumbents should win in a good economy is now down the
tubes. They do not. Bush was not rejected because of the
economy, rather that he made a contract and he broke it. There
were new taxes.
Clinton made at least a dozen contracts with America and he
broke everyone of them. There are no two ways to look at it.
President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton is a lying son of a
bitch. And there is no way to hold the voters did not see that.
But there is an indication that voters are still looking for
something. The House Republican contract with America was
clearly and unquestionably something the voters also deliberately
chose. Whatever is in that contract, that combined with what
Clinton and company accomplished, was enough reason to reverse
the power in the House after forty years.
The Clinton and liberal spin on this is now that the people
still want the Clinton change despite the fact it is not what
Clinton was elected on. It is a very strange attitude for a
purportedly intelligent person to hold. It is difficult to
believe that Clinton really believes people want what he
delivered rather than what he promised in his 1992 campaign.
I do admit I am become rather tired to the point of avidly
skeptical that Clinton has some sort of high IQ. It is not as
though he has demonstrated it in any public forum. We keep
hearing that he reads ten books a day or some such thing but
there is no sign of doing that in what he says. We hear a lot of
things about this person from the White House propagandists but
we see no evidence of them being true.
And no where is this more clear than in his post election
press conference. Several times he appeared ready to break out
in tears when for the first time the press was not buying his
opening remarks. His answers were not insightful. They
addressed nothing of substance regarding the election.
Rather his remarks and answers were based upon the
electorate really wanting what he had delivered. He demonstrated
no ability to comprehend the meaning of the voting in any manner.
And this is an intelligent man? Pardon me. Everyone but Clinton
gets it.

It’s the Clinton, stupid.

Now it is granted the incumbent party generally loses seats
in an off year election. But it is also generally true that in
presidential election years he carries candidates from his party
into office so that over the four years it is generally a wash.
When Clinton won the presidential election he carried no one with
him.
Clinton was truly the last man left standing in the
primaries. The system used by the Democrats to select a
candidate means that he had to become the candidate and that had
nothing to do with being the best candidate. Once in office he
was a much in trouble with his own party as he was with the
Republicans.
No matter what he might have wanted to do personally he was
in constant conflict with his party to get it. Rather than face
down his own party he grinned away his disagreements with them.
And in so doing he and his party liberals became a single image
in the minds of the voters.
All of this taken into account the failing is in arrogance.
Knowing there would be a good economy they all bet that they
could pass anything they wanted and as long as the economy was
good they could stay in office. They were very wrong.
That arrogance of power was such that there is a good chance
the Republican majority can put amendments to the Constitutional
before the states on a balanced budget, term limits, you name it,
even prayer in schools. And in doing so the Republicans can join
with Democrat conservatives in the states to ratify them.
[n.b. Submitting amendments to the Constitution to the states
for ratification does not require Presidential concurrence.]
The only thing Conservatives need concern themselves with at
this point is a similar arrogance. They need not work with
Clinton, rather only create a majority constituency that will
agree Clinton is blocking what they wish. With that position
they need only find a winning Presidential candidate against a
near empty field for the liberals.
The message is clear. Conservatives are in. Liberals are
out.
And it means the country gets a conservative agenda for at
least the next two years. Reagan and Bush working against a
liberal Congress had the ability to appeal to the people for
support for their platform. Clinton does not have that ability.
Clinton is now simply one person in the White House and
nothing more than that. He has no control over the political
agenda as he has no venue to introduce anything in either house
that can get out of committee without Conservative approval.
For example, Clinton’s next year’s budget goes directly to the
Republican controlled House Ways and Means Committee. Perhaps
they will not declare it dead on arrival as happened to Reagan’s
budgets.
The people have rejected Clinton and everything he and his
fellow liberals have accomplished. And in so doing Clinton is
now a lame duck president for the next 27 months. He has no way
to accomplish much of anything in his favor in that time.
Worse yet, his fellow Democrats who can appear to have had a
conservative change of heart are going to spend their time
distancing themselves from him, that is not supporting him making
the Republican majority even greater. At least six of them in
the Senate will be looking at a Presidential bid and that will
require they out conservative the Conservatives. When it comes
to questionable issues or getting that 2/3rds majority for
constitutional amendments it will the be presidential candidate
wannabes who will provide it. Right or wrong even liberals are
not dumb enough to ride dead jackass.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2. Obey or die.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941113 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (1)
To: All 10 Nov 94 17:46:00
Subject: THE 1994 ELECTION, PT. 2

Clinton and the 1994 Election
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <11/10>

Clinton has had two days to think over Tuesday’s election
and he still does not get it. He is still trying to convince
himself that the vote was a vindication of his program in some
manner despite every fact about the election.
He continues to imply that he is “the middle” of politics
despite the clear election results of the loss of so many of his
compatriots in the his idea of the middle. From the most senior
down to the most junior, they were kicked out. Everyone but a
couple who was identified as clearly defending the president or
being a key part of passing his agenda is gone.
The only notable exception at this point is Ted Kennedy and
the other might become Diane Feinstein but even should the latter
manage re-election it is still so close it requires the absentee
ballots be counted. That Clinton can possibly think that the
people who were his most vocal supporters are gone. How can he
possibly take that as support for what he clearly considers his
middle?
If he truly believes that then he is delusional. If he is
still trying to spin doctor the results he needs to try a
different approach. This is making him look like a fool.
And there is little help coming from his supporters. The
trick of spin doctoring is to find a plausible alternate
explanation. Some liberal should have been able to find a spin
by now but if so none has come up with it.
It looks like they are all simply in shock; that they could
not prepare themselves for the actually occurrence of what they
and everyone knew would happen. Even the magnitude of it was
easily predictable. Either side could hope it might or might not
happen but certainly there was enough warning to work out some
sort of face saving spin in advance.
As they have no spin prepared how can they possibly hold
there is any support for Clinton style economic policies?
Without a spin how can they make a claim there is support for
health care reform? Without a basis to work from how can they
make a case for any part of the Clinton agenda?
Passage of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs is
part of the both the Clinton and the Republican agenda. As with
most things Clinton wanted it was not really part of the Democrat
agenda. But when it passes there is no way Clinton can take the
credit away from the Republicans.
As Clinton failed to plan for defeat he is now totally
defeated. He has at most whatever fraction of his 43%
constituency that it left. That is the best he can ask to call
their Congressmen as Reagan did so effectively.
For example he is now saying he is in favor of some of the
points of the Republican Contract with America. Had he only
supported those points before the election his claim to support
some points now would not ring so hollow. And were he able to do
so he might be able to regain some of the credibility he started
losing immediately after his election in 1992.
But now he has nothing to build upon and he does not appear
to realize it as yet. He appears to be attempting to find
something to say rather simply keeping his mouth shut. He does
not realize he has lost the initiative in any legislative action.
It is about time Clinton found a dutch uncle rather than a
sensitivity counselor to talk with him.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

P.O. Box 82541, Tampa, Florida, 33682-2541, 813-969-0362

[note new address and phone]

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (2)
To: Ed Criswell 10 Nov 94 18:55:00
Subject: FLOOD / NOAH’S AR 1/яяяяя

EC> I simply don’t have the time to list all the creationist
EC> scientists and their credentials.

Why is it you do not have the time while people who have
read the ICR material do have the time to point out their PhDs
are in philosophy and theology?

If you wish, I could
EC> provide you with ICR’s and the Creation Research Society’s
EC> addresses so that you may write them with this question.

Why do you simply not pull some examples from the literature
you have read? The answer is they rarely give the degree field
for the PhD but always they stress the existence of the PhD for
those backwoods types who are easily impressed.

EC> Creationists have succeeded, I believe, in demonstrating
EC> that the evidence allows for interpretation that seems to
EC> confirm what the Bible says about our planets origins and
EC> early history.

If that is true, why do they lie about the evidence in the
first place?

If all they did was say that we should
EC> believe what the Bible says simply because it is the Bible
EC> then why do they have so many books on the subject of
EC> creationism?

That is exactly what they have to do to keep their jobs so
the only reason they do not admit their motivation is that it
would eliminate what little credibility they have.

Nonetheless, you missed my point. I said that
EC> creationist admit their bias when approaching this subject.

What they do not admit is that they are required to have
that bias to put food on the table.

EC> Naturalists would have us believe they have no bias which
EC> is hardly the truth.

People who do not lie about the data have no need to lie.
Your sources are required to lie.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (3)
To: Fred Garvin 10 Nov 94 19:04:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERN W

FG> FG>He did what? Pick those critters up and fly them
FG> FG>to South America? Did he us
FG> FG>transporter like they have on Star Trek?

FG> BS> He had Noah build a 747.

FG> Not big enough. Perhaps Noah built a 80,000 ton container ship.

Not big enough.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (4)
To: Andrew Cummins 10 Nov 94 19:05:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERN W

AC> AC> Kangaroos crossed a land bridge during the post-flood
AC> AC> ice-age.

AC> LT> Noah waited thousands of years for the Kangaroos to get TO
AC> LT> the Ark?

AC> Maybe Kangaroos lived with Noah before the Flood.

Maybe? Then you will of course point to fossil remains in
the Near East that were killed by the flood. Of course you will
not as you are lying again.

AC> AC> Why do you ask so many questions that that have already
AC> AC> been answered? The Flood water is now in the ocean.
AC> AC> Modern fish have adapted to the salinity levels of their
AC> AC> environment.

AC> LT> The Fish of the flood would have had to “adapt” in less
AC> LT> than a year

AC> What do you know about fish before the flood that gives you
AC> the authority to say that they would have to adapt in less
AC> than a year?

As there is no difference between fish before and after 2250
BC why would you ask the question when everyone knows the answer?

You are very silly.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1. Kill them before they burn you alive.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (5)
To: Ann Onstad 10 Nov 94 19:09:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERN WORL

AO> CB> MG> So you are claiming Noah invented the garden hose?
AO> CB>
AO> CB> What else could Noah have used to supply all those animals
AO> CB> with fresh water? 🙂

AO> The trunk of the elephant?

So where you been, Miss Annie?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Welcome to Masada, Texas. Never again!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (6)
To: Lee Grimsley 10 Nov 94 19:13:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

LG> EC> Thank you for the information. Let me respond: I) The
LG> EC> article criticizes creationists for being too vague. I find
LG> EC> this criticism to be vague.

LG> I have always marveled at the fact that people
LG> think creationism and evolution cannot coexist.
LG>
LG> Nowhere in the Bible does it state the earth is
LG> 6,000 years old.

But it does clearly give the “inerrant” ages of the
patriarchs in several places. That they do not all agree does
mitigate against inerrancy but then if all of those are thrown
out as wrong there there really isn’t much left of most of the
claims that are based upon what can not be called much different
from ancestor worship.

IN THE BEGINNING God created the
LG> heavens and the earth, and not one microsecond
LG> before the beginning. This could have been 6,000
LG> years ago or it could have been 6-trillion. IF IT
LG> HAD BEEN OF ANY importance to us, God would have
LG> told us.

But is also clearly uses the word days and has six of them
to accomplish this creation. It also leaves out all the
destruction of “kinds” that clearly occurred over those “days.”
Which means there is no support for the creation story in Genesis
as in fact it got next to nothing right.

LG> There were beings on the face of the earth for the
LG> book of Genesis even refers to “giants walking the
LG> face of the earth.”

Said giants are clear references to human giants of which
Goliath is referred as one of them.

LG> God plainly created Adam from the dust of the
LG> earth. How he created these other beings is
LG> unknown, because God evidently did not consider it
LG> to be important to us.

And as we know man evolved from a common ancestor to all
apes no dust involved in the least and certainly no special
creation. We also know it is impossible for the human species to
survive from a gene pool of only two people.

There are several other impossible things that we know
simply can not be true about this story. So why should there be
any credence given it?

LG> I do know God is just as capable of creating one
LG> single cell and letting it evolve as he is of
LG> creating Adam from the dust of the earth.

How you know that I have no idea.

But the point is there is no need for any supernatural
influence whatsoever. In fact that raises more questions than it
answers.

LG> One fact remains — IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED.
LG> What happened after that will always be a mystery
LG> until God chooses to disclose it.

So when is your god going to publish a paper on the subject?
So far no god has been needed to explain anything.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Of the people, by the people, and for the people or else!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (7)
To: Andrew Cummins 10 Nov 94 19:24:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

AC> FG> OK. Great. I respect your views. But I’ll keep repeating
AC> FG> the questions: How did freshwater fish survive being
AC> FG> exposed to salt water for at least 40 days? And how did
AC> FG> Australian critters like ‘roos get to Australia? And how
AC> FG> did very slow moving critters like the sloth get to South
AC> FG> America?

AC> And, I’ll keep repeating for your pea-sized brain (a brain
AC> obviously too small to remember what I’ve said). Modern
AC> fish have adapted to the salinity of their habitats, many
AC> of Australia’s animals crossed on a land-bridge during a
AC> post-flood ice-age. And, the sloth migrated over many
AC> generations.

Listen up, pea brain. There was NO ice age after 2250 BC as
it would be clearly reported in hundreds of places. There was
NEVER a land bridge connecting anything to Australia. It started
as part of Antarctica.

Therefore, you are lying again.

AC> Now, maybe you can tell me how the first life formed.

The same way as it forms in laboratory experiments as you
well know.

And,
AC> tell me how come if I find another fossil, how come it is
AC> 99.999% certain to be a kind of fossil already found,
AC> instead of a new kind?

The old fashioned way, you look for it.

Tell me why your left hand is so
AC> much like your right hand.

You never heard of bilateral symmetry?

Rather a better question is why could not your god create
species without bilateral symmetry? Does it lack a creative
muse?

Tell me why evolutionists have
AC> to resort to fascism if the truth is on their side.

First look up the meaning of the word fascism and then so
where there is any truth in this statement. Not that I expected
any truth as it would be the first truth you would have ever told
in this conference.

AC> It seems that before you go attacking other’s religions
AC> that you ought to first get your science in order, unless
AC> your beliefs really aren’t science…

When you stop lying about science and admit your complete
ignorance of science you will be better off.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941114 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (196)
To: Bob Sillyheimer 10 Nov 94 21:08:00
Subject: BLOOD

BS> MG> Please, read your bible. In roughly the same place it
BS> MG> says the money not go back into the treasury because it is
BS> MG> blood money. Obviously the pie of metal themselves had
BS> MG> become unclean. The rules read that unclean passed along
BS> MG> until the chain stopped, very like the curse of the
BS> MG> werewolf.

BS> The whole thing doesn’t make too much sense, because they
BS> said “His blood be upon us and upon our children”, or was
BS> that after the Judas incident.

The whole thing starts to make sense after you realize
nothing was written down until they gave up on his promise to
return within the life of one of the apostles. With that in
mind, inventing a story of private remorse (just who was there to
hear it) makes much more sense.

It also explains why there is a total lack of any first
person narration in the gospels. Certainly “I saw” or “I heard”
or “He spoke of us saying” would be much more forceful a
presentation than the story-telling, narrative viewpoint. But as
they are written they are clearly the recounting of stories that
had been around for quite some time and from different sources as
there are so many points of disagreement.

It is perhaps most clear the Gospel of Thomas, which
contains only quotations, appears at first hand to be a more
realistic recounting than all the stories that sprang up around
him.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto “Let God sort out the innocent!”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (197)
To: Ken Pangborn 10 Nov 94 21:20:00
Subject: CATHOLIC “ARMY”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (198)
To: Lee Grimsley 11 Nov 94 02:38:00
Subject: $10,000 UP FOR GRABSяяяяя

LG> BS> Hey you simpleton, can YOU prove that gawd exists? I will
LG> BS> make YOU the same offer, except replace the evolution with
LG> BS> god.
LG> BS>
LG> BS> Put up or shut up!

LG> Once again liberalism raises its head.

LG> If you can’t refute it, reverse it…..and run.

You are the first to state it so back it up. I shit on all
of this creationist babble. Are you going to call me a liberal?
If so, please provide the definition of liberal that you are
using.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2. Obey or die.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941115 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (73)
To: Ken Pangborn 10 Nov 94 21:33:00
Subject: DEATH IN HIROSHIMA (3/3)

KP> BB> They were not targets very often in August of 1945. The
KP> BB> war was over. The terms were being negotiated.

KP> MG> Rather, the only error was that the Japanese language is
KP> MG> still spoken on earth. I agree with Halsey.

KP> Matt… please ask BLURT where these “terms” were
KP> being negotiated and by whom! I’ve asked 50 times…. He
KP> keeps reciting Einstein’s regret at the use of his
KP> discovery of nuclear fission.

You know and I know he is making it up. That he will not
post them from his “voluminous” readings makes it all the more
obvious.

He is clearly posting conspiracy theory. True recountings
would start with the facts such as the terms of the negotiations
and then continue with the surrounding information. He is
posting only the surrounding information while being unable to
explain the lack of the central facts necessary to give his story
a semblence of truth.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4. The Feds can get away with it.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (74)
To: Ed Criswell 10 Nov 94 21:36:00
Subject: FLOOD / NOAH’S AR 1/яяяяя

EC> I have read the Bible critically and have satisifed myself
EC> that it is what it says it is.

If you have truly done so, explain the following.

Genesis Creation

In the broadest sense the first few chapters of Genesis is
four stories. One of the creation of the world and three of the
origin of the Hebrew people.

In the first of the three stories they are the special
creation of the god Jehovah or Yahweh. The second is the story
where they are the descendants of god. Third is they arose from
the Covenant.

The Second story

Adam was homosexual but what was he going to do about it?
God saw he was alone. God gave him a helpmate out of his rib,
same genetic material [you know that stuff you talk about
regarding color vision?], and therefore a transexual male. The
truth of this statement was not apparent until relatively recent
discovering in genetics.

In any event in Genesis 2 we discover there is a forbidden
Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and if eaten Adam only will
die.

Coming to Genesis 3 we find there is a Tree of Life (which
is not forbidden.)

We find there is a serpent in a tree who later crawls on his
belly which for many years has puzzled readers. Of course the
answer is simple, it is a flying snake which draws in mythic
considerations. This may have connection to the dragon myths
which are traditionally drawn more like snakes than the modern
European version. So the crawling penalty was obviously a loss
of wings.

The dragon is associated with Wisdom as in the Tree of
Knowledge. This is no question this is another example of a
common image of legend.

We find both of them ate of the Tree of Knowledge and
neither of them died. We find the Yahweh God deliberately
mislead them. In those days of course, gods were considered
tricky folks, prone to lying to mortals so this is not to be
considered a surprising aspect of Yahweh God.

There follows a rather elaborate three part curse.

Then we come to an interesting statement by Yahweh God.

“Now that the man has become like one of us in knowing good
from evil, he must not be allowed to reach out his hand and pick
from the Tree of Life too, and eat and live forever!”

This is extremely revealing in that we now know there were
many gods of which Yahweh God was just one of many. It is not a
reference to “angels” as Yahweh God clearly says “one of us.”

We know the only separation from between Man and the gods is
the knowledge of good and evil and since we have that now, there
is no difference between us and all the gods including Yahweh
God, save for living forever.

We know the woman did not become like them and was unable to
distinguish good from evil. The word Adam means “the man” and is
the same word. A different translation in English for the same
word in different places satisfies only later “what it must mean.”

We know there was for some reason a fear of the man living
forever although it is not explained. However, as we know
survival after death was not a Hebraic tradition or belief this
would certainly have to refer to a personal, physical
immortality.

I have noted a common literal expression that “Jesus is
seated at the right hand of the Father.”

I note some obvious conclusions to draw from this. First
off to sit heaven must have gravity, the chair he sits on must be
material (gravity is the interaction of material objects), and
thus to sit on said chair, said Jesus must be material.

Going one step further god has not only a right side but a
hand on that side. Making the normal presumption there is an arm
intervening the right side and the hand. This indicated god has
to a significant extent a physically human form.

Question, does this not support my contentions from Genesis
and the virgin birth that god is a human being quite like us. I
find no contradiction to this in the Bible.

This is further supported by Genesis recounting the “sons of
god knew the daughter of men and had children by them.” Thus
there is a Mrs. God around somewhere, they have children that can
interbreed with humans and thus have sperm, DNA, very flesh and
blood gods similar to the Greek Pantheon and most other gods for
that matter.

=====

Yes, you do have beliefs.
EC> Everytime you speak of things that may or may not occured
EC> in the distant past you speak with an assumed set of
EC> beliefs. To believe you or anyone else can k speak
EC> emprically of these things is to expose to yourself self as
EC> a fool.

A fool to take people at their word? That they meant
exactly what they said? EXPLAIN why that is foolish.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Today Waco. Gestern USA.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (75)
To: Ed Criswell 10 Nov 94 21:37:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

EC> Here a 3 questions about evolution you can answer for me.
EC> Please cite sources.
EC>
EC> 1) Why do new complex designs appear in the fossil record
EC> suddenly and fully formed? (Even S.J. Gould admits this is
EC> the case)

They do not appear that way and Gould does not say that when
quoted in context — which makes you a liar.

EC> 2) Why are there biologic universals such as DNA, RNA,
EC> amino acids, protein, and the genetic code? This is not
EC> predicted by evolution.

That is because it is not part of evolution. Any honest
person would admit that.

EC> 3) Cellulose is the most abundant biological compound in
EC> nature anda ready food source, yet no multicellular animals
EC> can digest it. The ability to digest it would be an obvious
EC> advantage to a lifeform so why have none evolved the
EC> ability to produce cellulase?

Are you saying you have never heard of ungulates? In your
bible they are referred to as cud-chewing beasts. Just what do
you think they are eating? Are you also saying you have never
heard of termites? What do you think they are eating?

Or are you saying you have no idea what cellulose is?

Damn! You are really ignorant.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (76)
To: Ken Pangborn 10 Nov 94 21:46:00
Subject: JAPAN NUKED 01

KP> MG> No ship wants to go into battle with less than 90% bunker
KP> MG> and Hawaii was 50% bunker away from California and from
KP> MG> Alaska. No sane Navy would consider combat with under 70%
KP> MG> fuel. Insane only wins battles in the movies.

KP> All this would have meant is that Hawaii would have
KP> had to have been retaken. It may have added a year to 18
KP> months to the war.

What it means is that the Japanese Navy based in Hawaii
would only have had to play cat and mouse with the US fleet for a
day or two until it had too little fuel to return home and then
pursued the kill and wiped out the fleet. 50% is already the
point of no return.

And even then a fleet alone would be of no value with
actually landing on the islands, meaning hundreds of troop ships
following up the fleet with a similar limitation in fuel and all
the while the one fleet tries to engage the other they are
sitting ducks. If they try to drive directly for a landing they
are attacked by both land and sea based aircraft, the former
having a much greater bomb load and have comparatively unlimited
fuel compared to US carriers.

Of course an entirely new fleet with greater fuel capacity
could have been constructed with a huge number of pre-positioned
oilers to top them off before battle and hopefully still there on
the return leg to refuel the survivors.

KP> MG> Had they taken Hawaii it would not have been a Naval war any
KP> MG> more than Europe was a Naval war.

KP> Only temporarily.

Look into ship construction in those days and the details of
naval combat. Even nuclear carriers are limited in their
operations by the fuel needed for the aircraft.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Flame on!” — Janet “The Torch” Reno

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941126 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (132)
To: Ken Pangborn 22 Nov 94 23:50:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

KP> MG> It is time to realize that the tyranny of the government
KP> MG> comes from the courts also.

KP> It has been done here in Florida repeatedly! The
KP> Fla. supremes dumping amendments that aren’t POLITICALLY
KP> CORRECT! (In other words LIBERAL!)

There are indeed consequences of a change in the law the
people may not foresee and thus be found unconstitutional. For
example the term limits prop in Washington state was overturned
on the grounds that the fed constitution is, as it says, the
supreme law of the land and thus its statement of the
qualifications for a candidate are the only ones.

The kind of case you are referring to is like when the 187
equivalent in Texas was overturned in 1982. There the USSC found
that Texas had not shown it was harmed. It is that kind of
politically correct side-stepping that is unacceptable. You may
have heard Wilson swearing the USSC will have to face this issue
directly. I presume he has learned from the Texas experience,
can show harm and thus that precedent is not applicable.

KP> MG> If the Supreme Court kills 187 it is also a matter of the
KP> MG> federal government imposing its will upon the people.

KP> Negating the will of the PEOPLE!

At worst the will of the people will have to be expressed as
a constitutional amendment. This congress might be willing to
give us such an amendment. Last time I heard the only other
country in the world that has “born here” as citizens is England.
It would be a very minor modification.

The purpose of the 14th was not to cover criminals and to
discover that later is something that will be tested. The sooner
the better.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.10
* Origin: DOC’S PLACE IN THE GHETTO, NC3603! (1:3603/141.0)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 224 246 301 401 470 501 601 701 801 396/1 3603/141 270
SEEN-BY: 3603/20020 20050 20060 3615/50 51

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (133)
To: Thomas Mccullock 23 Nov 94 00:02:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

TM> LT> It would be punishing children.

TM> > Do you support special treatment for the children of all
TM> > felons or just those of illegals?

TM> Do you propose that we imprison the children of felons?

In this case I propose putting them on the same bus to
Mexico with their parents.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (134)
To: Thomas Blakely 23 Nov 94 00:04:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

TB> MG> Are you suggesting Europeans came here for welfare
TB> MG> benefits paid for by the Indians? If you are you are the
TB> MG> product of a public school education.

TB> Are you suggesting that the Europeans who came here asked
TB> and recieved permission from the original occupants to
TB> immigrate to this continent? If you are than you’re the
TB> product of a failed abortion.

I do not remember there being any problem with the original
immigrants and for a couple centuries there was no particular
problem save that stirred up by the British government. Further
where there was a conception of property ownership the land was
purchased.

Of course had there been anyone to obtain permission from
then I am certain it would have been obtained. The natives had
no crystal balls and the Europeans had things they wants, like
iron and beads.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Flame on!” — Janet “The Torch” Reno

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (135)
To: Scot Bear 23 Nov 94 00:09:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

SB> > Do you always give such support to people in criminal
SB> > violation of federal law?

SB> Well, what do YOU propose to do with them? Send ’em back?

Of course, send them back as quickly as they can be rounded
up.

SB> The logistics and cost would probably be worse than just
SB> keeping them here and assimilating them into society…

It is only a matter of hiring enough busses. And even
though the law is not being enforced they are already going back
twice as fast as they are coming in. So they are starting to
take care of much of the logistics themselves. If more busses
are needed they can be driven in from other states. It is done
all the time.

There is no further explanation needed. They came here for
the benefits. That is why they are starting to leave.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (136)
To: Gary Steinweg 23 Nov 94 00:19:00
Subject: THE REAL CHALLENGE

GS> In my opinion, voter fraud is being encouraged. While I
GS> like the idea of absentee ballots, it is REAL EASY to vote
GS> 2, 20 or 200 times. There are no checks and safe-guards.
GS> Of course, this it Kalifornia. Other places could be
GS> better………… or not.

Thanks for the info. It will be used eventually. That
“motor voter” bill was part of it at the national level. They
are part of the constituency of those who passed it. But again,
no one stated that.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (137)
To: Gary Steinweg 23 Nov 94 00:21:00
Subject: THE REAL CHALLENGE

GS> FAT CHANCE!!!! The I.N.S. takes action on less than 1% of
GS> the illegals turned over to them. The first thing they do
GS> is release them and tell them to come back for a
GS> deportation hearing in 60 days. Care to guess how many
GS> show up?
GS>
GS> I voted for 187. I really didn’t like 187. I don’t like
GS> anything that opens the door to totalitarian tactics, and
GS> in my opinion, 187 does.

The “Born in East LA” scenario is quite real and I have a
problem with it. But the release and return scenario sounds like
a work avoidance game by INS. It is not unusual for gov types to
schedule their work around the presumption of their showing up
for the hearing.

A better strategy would be to verify their address and check
it with an arrest warrant in 61 days. That would force them to
keep moving every time they are caught. Force up the cost of
staying here beyond what they can afford and chances are they
will go back.

GS> The real answer is to put concertina wire, machine gun
GS> towers, mine fields, etc. all along the border and seal it.

Pat Buchanan suggested something like that but it was found
politically incorrect.

GS> Let any one out that wants out, but don’t let anyone in.
GS> We’re getting 30,000 new illegals into California every
GS> month. Mexico has depended on the U.S. for many years to
GS> be their poverty safety valve.

Some posted that they were returning twice as fast as they
were coming in since it passed.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (138)
To: All 23 Nov 94 03:37:00
Subject: SURVIVAL

Harper’s Magazine, December 1994

Harper’s Index, page 13

Factor by which the mortality rate of the homeless urban
non-white American exceeds that of the housed non-whites : 2

Factor by which the mortality of rate of homeless urban white
Americans exceeds that of housed whites : 5

=====

It appears to me to say that non-whites survive better than
whites while homeless.

Does that really mean there is a jungle out there?

Comments are encouraged, the more outraged the better.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Take and forget is not an oath of office.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (139)
To: All 23 Nov 94 03:51:00
Subject: ANDREW CUMMINS

Let me tell you the saga of Andrew Cummins.

I am certain you have found him out for what he is but there
is more.

Way back before he “twitted” me and that includes denying he
ever did it he claimed to have seen the Paluxy River human
footprints in a cast. He described this as a normal 15 (fifteen)
inch long human foot print. I pointed out his definition of
normal to him.

The next event in our relationship was that he was claiming
the Dead Sea was evidence of a young earth in that there were no
salt deposits. I pointed out the salt business in mining them
but he was adamant there were no salt deposits.

This went on for a while so I shifted the argument to claim
that after the flood the rift valley of the Dead Sea was filled
to the brim yet there were no salt deposits.

Immediately he responded saying there were salt deposits.
When I pointed out the change in his position he told me he
“twitted” and did never again respond.

About six months later he came back and he responded to one
of my messages on the subject. I asked him why he had decided to
relent on his twitting me. I recounted the above information to
him about the first events and he never again responded to me.

I am now provoking him to the point of response and he has
not done so. At least this time he has had the sense to keep his
twit filter working so he will not need to lie again.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto “Let God sort out the innocent!”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (140)
To: Willie Martin 23 Nov 94 04:02:00
Subject: BLACKS AND I.Q.

WM> The new book “The Bell Curve” I think is just the latest of
WM> many that prove blacks are the least intelligent of all the
WM> different races.

It also proves “White Man’s Burden” is correct. The good
news is that intelligence goes upwards in the children. Be
fruitful and multiply and do the race a favor.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4. The Feds can get away with it.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (141)
To: Tommy Bradham 23 Nov 94 04:03:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

TB> Check again…the official media term is “undocumented
TB> immigrant”. Politically correct as usual…

“Person in criminal violation of federal law” or
“unconvicted felon” would be more correct.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1. Kill them before they burn you alive.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (143)
To: Ann Ross 23 Nov 94 04:08:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

AR> By now you know about Gingrich’s Orphanages. Gee,
AR> I wonder if he intends to establish them as part of
AR> the government, complete with bureaucracy. I
AR> wonder if Debtor’s prison makes the “set.” Do we
AR> have the feeling that we are going back in time or
AR> wot?! OFF with his head /evil grin.

By now, Annimal, we know you are lying fool. The only
statement he has made is not to pay for additional children. That
is the way it goes. Welcome to the real world.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (144)
To: Ann Ross 23 Nov 94 04:10:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

AR> BB> Or it would require that the federales ignore the
AR> BB> Constitution, which is entirely routine under the tyranny
AR> BB> of Clinton. Clinton claimed responsibility for Waco, where
AR> BB> military tanks were used against American civilians, in
AR> BB> violation of Law. Why should he worry about law when it
AR> BB> comes to immigrants. And Janet Reno is his stooge Attorney
AR> BB> General, an accomplice in the Waco murders, and she isn’t
AR> BB> going to complain about anything.

AR> But it was in fact planned under the rePUKElicans.
AR> Why don’t you ask that they do the decent thing and
AR> finally investigate themselves.

For 40 years the Democrats have investigated Republicans
while shielding their own. What do you think the audit of the
House is all about? Why do you think Doc Newt directed Folley to
leave everything in place down to paperclips? He did not want
the Dems pulling an Ollie North.

But then there is nothing to hide is there.

40 years of secrecy? Want to put money on it, Annimal?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1. Kill them before they burn you alive.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (145)
To: Ken Pangborn 23 Nov 94 04:14:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

You might want to jump in on the local Baychat. I have
seeded the feminist military issue and have a respondant. It was
slow but it needs a touch of your grace and charm.

(My board has a problem with exporting netmail else I would
have gotten to you earlier.)

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (147)
To: Thomas Blakely 23 Nov 94 04:17:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

TB> MG> If the Supreme Court kills 187 it is also a matter of
TB> MG> the federal government imposing its will upon the people.

TB> If the Supreme Court kills 187, it is a government which
TB> represents us ALL overruling the morons of this country.

I am not certain from your wording just which side you are
taking in this. You may be in favor of 187 but more likely you
are in favor of giving special privileges to federal felons.
There are 1.3 million such felons in California.

I can not imagine you would support them in their felony.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Give me liberty or I will take it.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (149)
To: Ann Onstad 23 Nov 94 04:26:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

AO> Well how do you feel about population control?

BTW: I forgot

We Got Annie!

apologies

AO> Do you feel that is someone cannot provide the minimum care
AO> to a child that child should be taken away or that the
AO> government should offer assistance so that the child can
AO> stay with its natural parent?

The issue is different than the terms in which it is
painted. You missed my posting on the use for closing military
bases, a free choice, want welfare? Go to a base.

AO> Illegal aliens want a better life for themselves. They seem
AO> to take the jobs that no one else in our country wants and
AO> that pay the least. We have so many people on welfare who
AO> aren’t willing to do those jobs that it is a relief that
AO> they will do them.

In fact they really do not take only those jobs. Rather
once they get passed entry level and learn so decent English they
do behave like real Americans and go for the best jobs they can
and usually have them.

My issue is different. Back about six years when there was
an amnesty for the illegals I encouraged to the point of
threatening our illegals to apply. I chose on the basis of being
a good worker and a credit to this country. I would love to call
them fellow Americans.

The problem is we can not make that distinction. I would
have no problem with a more complex criteria such as (don’t quote
me but get the idea) here for a while, no drain on the system,
and making a living wage. And the rest? To Mexico and/or hell
with them!

I have no problem with them taking jobs if they are the best
we can find. They are the best people for those jobs. That
means we are in a position to skim off the best of Mexico to our
advantage. I would never object to that. I want people who will
work to make this country better and that means workers not
welfare.

The problem being that federal law does no permit this. It
requires indiscriminant welfare and the like. It permits no
choice or decision as to the benefit of the person to the
country. It is an all or nothing position. I find that
unacceptable but having to take a side I am on the side of
chartering a lot of buses for Tiajuana.

I would rather have a better position to take but these are
the debating lines.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (153)
To: Thomas Mccullock 23 Nov 94 04:45:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

TM> > Sorry, the 14th amendment says “persons BORN” here are
TM> > citizens. You could not change the “law” you would have to
TM> > amend the constitution.

TM> But the fascists consider the Constitution to be just an
TM> unecessary obstacle.
TM>
TM> They scream and yell about how dare the courts tell them
TM> that the majority cannot enact blatantly unconstitutional
TM> laws if they so choose…

Person’s born does not include their parents. The parents
are the targets.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 3. Kill ’til no Fed breaths American air.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (154)
To: Bert Byfield 23 Nov 94 04:47:00
Subject: CHANGING HISTORY

BB> And YOU are smarter then than Eisenhower, Einstein, and
BB> MacArthur? Gimme a break. Truman? He was the fool that
BB> ordered the murder to continue and then escalate with the
BB> nuclear bombing. Truman was just a fool, a new president
BB> in over his head. He had no special knowledge that
BB> justified murder. I suppose you think that Charlie Manson
BB> had some special knowledge “at the time” that justified his
BB> crimes? Or are you only an apologist for federal
BB> murderers?

Einstein was never known for his political or his military
strategic ability. If he were we might have had a peaceful world
in 1950 rather than a Cold War. Had he any other talents than
the one idiot quote from him it might be different.

Eisenhower you have clearly taken out of context.

MacArthur was looking forward to leading that landing as he
posed six times for his landing in the Philippines and his future
presidential run.

Other than that, you have nothing.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (155)
To: Scot Bear 23 Nov 94 04:56:00
Subject: FACE ON AIDS, PART 2яяяяя

SB> > From: MATT GIWER Refer#: NONE
SB> > To: SCOT BEAR Recvd: NO
SB> > MG>on AIDS, Part 2

SB> > /????????
SB> >
SB> > Where did you dig this up, and why?

SB> The AIDS/HIV Echo…. Giwer`s been making a pest of himself
SB> in there, too! 🙂

Rather it was the AIDS_HIV conference where moderator
Bernard Saitz lied about my introducing the subject as a soul
southing justification to ban me when others had cross posted the
files. Sainz is a liar and your are a liar.

Next question.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Flame on!” — Janet “The Torch” Reno

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (156)
To: Andrew Cummins 23 Nov 94 05:01:00
Subject: FLOOD / NOAH’S AR 1/

AC> PS> First: How much water would have been needed?

AC> Roughly, about a third that is presently in the ocean.

liar

AC> PS> Second: What keeps a “vapor canopy” suspended in the air? Gravity
AC> PS> *will* take hold eventually.

AC> Well, it did fall. BTW, what keeps the clouds up?

stupid shit

AC> PS> Third: Where did all of the water go?

AC> The ocean.

fool

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord! It’s a cookbook! — FBI manual

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (157)
To: Lee Grimsley 23 Nov 94 05:06:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

LG> I would have sworn that Hess was a Jewish name.
LG>
LG> But ANY JEW would know that Moses wrote the first
LG> books of the Old Testament, then was followed by
LG> even more men.
LG>
LG> Sorry I overestimated your knowledge.

I regret you over estimated your own. Moses was a fucking
illiterate and there is no reason to believe he ever existed much
less Hebrews in Egypt. It is all a crock.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto “Let God sort out the innocent!”

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (158)
To: Ken Pangborn 23 Nov 94 05:15:00
Subject: HIROSHIMA

KP> Actually that’s incorrect. Both Hiroshima and
KP> Nagasaki were important military tragets.

And Tokyo and Asaka were backup targets and to hell with a
dead emperor.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans. Bill Clinton

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (159)
To: Alan Hess 23 Nov 94 05:19:00
Subject: IN THE BEGINNING….

AH> In the beginning, man created gods to explain what to them
AH> was unexplainable. Man later discovered that his invented
AH> god or gods could be used to control large masses of
AH> people. Man still uses gods for that purpose.

Close but you lack the style.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941128 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (214)
To: Bert Byfield 25 Nov 94 22:31:00
Subject: DEATH IN HIROSHIMA (1/2)

BB> MG> Killing the pool of soldiers and war workers is evil?
BB> MG> Please explain why it is evil to kill the workers for
BB> MG> munitions plants, taxpayers, and people waiting to become
BB> MG> old enough to join in the war.

BB> Geez, a smart guy like you doesn’t know the answer? There
BB> was no “pool of workers” in World War II.

Now you are claiming there was no war industry in Japan. Or
are you saying all the munitions plants had been automated during
the war?

It was a routine
BB> war, not a struggle for survival, even Ken P says the
BB> Japanese never had a chance, and I agree.

You agree they were both stupid to attack and too stupid to
realize they needed to surrender on 7 Dec 1941. Yet you expect
anyone to take you seriously when you hold they were smart enough
to surrender a few years later. Explain.

The idea that
BB> any Japanese citizen was a legitimate target is a fascist
BB> concept.

Actually the idea was first promoted by Churchill due to the
realities of what war had become in WW II. But you have
demonstrated your ignorance of warfare too many times for me to
expect you to comprehend the change.

Perhaps that doesn’t bother you. Perhaps you
BB> love the image of rivers of blood.

As you know there were none. But then you have said you get
all of your ideas from fiction.

But this is primitive
BB> tribalism, not civilization, and advanced human beings must
BB> rise above the old neanderthal skull-bashing of the savage
BB> and learn to run a decent social organization.

Additionally you have no concept of anthropology or history.
Not surprising.

Real
BB> humanity is people living their lives in harmony, growing
BB> things, making things, making society work.

If you had convinced the Japanese of that in 1930 we would
not be having this discussion.

Murder is an
BB> aberration.

Name a time in human history without war and copy the
Bosnians.

Is the concept of “sufficient force” totally
BB> beyond your grasp?

The military concept of superior force but then you have no
concept of military matters.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in charge of Waco operations.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (215)
To: Ken Pangborn 25 Nov 94 22:40:00
Subject: DEATH IN NAGASAKI (2/3)

KP> MG> I find it interesting you believe the US entered the war on
KP> MG> D-Day. Do you know anything about that war?

KP> Jesus Christ Giwer isn’t the answer to that
KP> question so painfully fucking obvious by now it hurts to
KP> type it? The asshole knows NOTHING aside from the
KP> propaganda sheets.

In the last message he demonstrated no concept of
anthropology, history or current events. It was quite a
compelling demonstration in only one sentence.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (216)
To: Alan Hess 25 Nov 94 22:41:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

AH> AH>> Are you saying that the Original Testament, like the
AH> AH>> Constitution, was created by men?

AH> MG> No one else to have done it.

AH> Judaism and Christianity say otherwise.

Jews and Christians say otherwise but they have no basis
for that statement as it is unbiblical. No place is there such a
statement.

So, if the
AH> Original Testament is God’s word, it didn’t need amending
AH> by men (Testament II.) If it wasn’t God’s word, then it
AH> has no more importance than anyone else’s fairy tales.

Precisely. And what people say about what it says is a very
drastic amendment.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Of the people, by the people, and for the people or else!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (217)
To: Lee Grimsley 25 Nov 94 22:44:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

LG> MG> Then why was it revealed that way? Or was it deliberately
LG> MG> revealed that way just to make the story sound stupid?

LG> Where does the Bible reveal that the days of
LG> creation were 24 hours in length?

When it uses the word day because that is how long a day is.

Or perhaps you will give me a similar license with the rest
of the bible? That I can give a different meaning to any and
every other word? That way it is very simple to prove the
apostles were lying about the resurrection as those days did not
mean 24 hours either but millions of years. If in every case the
word day means whatever you want it to mean then of what value
the written word in the first place?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages. FBI at Waco.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (218)
To: Lee Grimsley 25 Nov 94 22:48:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERNяяяяяя

LG> MG> Why do you not post it instead of just claiming it?

LG> Just a trait I picked up observing you in action, I
LG> guess.

When I make a claim I am willing to support it. Now why do
you not support your claims?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 3. Kill ’til no Fed breaths American air.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (219)
To: Bert Byfield 25 Nov 94 22:51:00
Subject: HOLY WAR AGAINST JAPAN

BB> MG> BB> Hey, do yourself a favor and rent some Japanese movies.
BB> MG> BB> The best are the old ones, often black & white with
BB> MG> BB> subtitles, and learn what Japan is REALLY about.

BB> MG> Why not rent some American movies to learn what
BB> MG> America is really like? Is this an extension of your
BB> MG> referencing fiction to learn what things really are like?

BB> Matt, it is okay to learn about foreign people.

And you a fool if you think you are going to learn from
movies.

I rent a
BB> LOT of American movies, and I love my country. That
BB> doesn’t require me to remain ignorant about other
BB> countries.

That is your problem. You haven’t watched any movies about
WW II to learn what it really was about. Rent some and change
your position.

BB> MG> Yojimbo is about as good for Japan as a John Wayne
BB> MG> western is for America.

BB> Yes! Both are FANTASTIC. Clint Eastwood is a more
BB> interesting example. Did you know that many Clint Eastwood
BB> westerns also exist as “easterns” — movies with the same
BB> plot but done in a Japanese setting with swords? You don’t
BB> like John Wayne??? I am a big fan of John Wayne, and
BB> Toshiro Mifune, too. I think “Yojimbo” was the equivalent
BB> of “For a Fistful of Dollars.” Anyway there are a number of
BB> parallels, all great cinema.

And despite all that they remain fiction. Look up The Power
of Myth some day. Fiction doesn’t sell unless it is myth.

BB> *The Seven Samuai* and *The Magnificent Seven* is the most
BB> popular eastern/western pair.
BB>
BB> It’s been 49 years. We don’t have to hate Japan any more.

And what gives you the impression we do? And what gives you
the impression the Japanese still do not hate us?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (220)
To: Jim Higgins 25 Nov 94 22:56:00
Subject: MATT GIWER

JH> BS> Matt Giwer has been banned from the conference. Please
JH> BS> refrain from answering his messages. I am dealing with his
JH> BS> attempts to get around the ban.

JH> MG> What attempts are you talking about?

JH> Isn’t this the asshole who moderates FIDO TAGLINES? I was
JH> tossed off that one a couple of years ago for suggesting he
JH> might be wound a bit tight! 😉

There are at least two who moderate taglines. The other
(forget the name) runs RTKBA. Him I said was merely stupid.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Of the people, by the people, and for the people or else!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (221)
To: Jim Higgins 25 Nov 94 23:00:00
Subject: PART TWO PROBLEMS

JH> If he is doing it manually he is probably a busy fellow. If
JH> it is just happening at his BBS then there is some sort of
JH> fundamental software problem.
JH>
JH> Maybe if you split your messages manually vs letting your
JH> OLR, or even worse, your host BBS do the splitting that
JH> will solve the problem.

It is a matter of always remembering. I know I do not have
to do it for the local chat conference which I thought might be
simply something different than the Fido software. But when I
found the accidental long ones were getting through intact as far
as Miami and Jacksonville it was it apparent it is some system
higher up on the food chain.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages. FBI at Waco.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (223)
To: All 26 Nov 94 01:18:00
Subject: V. A. DAY

For those who wish to start counting down, the liberation of
America will be complete on 12 November 1996, Victory in America
Day.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (225)
To: Ken Pangborn 26 Nov 94 03:00:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

KP> LT> It’s a moderately priced bridge called “compromise.”

KP> Linda pray tell…. just HOW does a woman
KP> “COMPROMISE” with a predatory rapist/murderer?

blow job

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 3. Kill ’til no Fed breaths American air.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (226)
To: Linda Terrell 26 Nov 94 03:01:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

LT> So non citizens have equal protection under the
LT> law–elsewise it would be legal to kill, rob, beat or rape
LT> a non-citizen.

Rather than vice versa.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bureau of Firearms, Alcohol, Religion and Tobacco

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (227)
To: Linda Terrell 26 Nov 94 03:02:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

LT> If the 14th Amendment doesn’t protect ALL PERSONS then we
LT> can kill, rob and beat all non-citizens, can’t we?
LT>
LT> Besides, we can herd all the BORN citizen children into
LT> Newt’s orphanages after we herd their “illegal” parents
LT> out.

The legal custom of would be they would go with their
parents if not passed some age of responsibility. And certainly
their parents would be deported by the INS if they ever get
around to doing their job — which is what this is all about.

Certainly the parents would be cut off from all services
while INS puts them through the deportation hoop. Anything else
would hold the criminals have the right to vote simply because
the 14th protects it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Flame on!” — Janet “The Torch” Reno

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (228)
To: Linda Terrell 26 Nov 94 03:05:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

LT> It doesn’t allow for due process. And all “persons” in
LT> the US are due Due Process.

So you are saying the due process should be changed to the
hearing being held immediately, preferably in a bus station?
They would all get the same treatment and none would be denied
due process.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco! Never again! Vote Libertarian!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (229)
To: Roland Cycan 26 Nov 94 03:09:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

RC> Given how much we generally like the idea of people
RC> in the government making decsions for us and about
RC> us (i.e., not much), it seems odd you would entrust
RC> to them more power to make such basic decisions.
RC> How easily one could for purposes of implementation
RC> define “resident” to mean “living here and I like
RC> it that way”, as opposed to “living here and I
RC> don’t like it that way.”

Rather this discussion regards people who are in criminal
violation of federal law by their presence in this country and
nothing else.

RC> As to requiring one parent to be “legal,” I thought
RC> most of us long ago left behind the concept that a
RC> child is responsible for the sins of his father.

What does that have to do with it? Are you now saying that
sending a child to live with its parents is some kind of
punishment?

RC> As an alternative, perhaps making it very easy to
RC> be “legal” is a better approach. I believe a 30
RC> day residency period is all that is needed to vote
RC> when you move from one jusisdiction to another.
RC> Maybe a 30 day residency period in the country
RC> should be all that is needed to be “legal.”

Now if we were talking LEGAL residency that would be one
thing but we are talking criminal residency. If residency is
legal the time required is not relevant.

RC> Immigrants, legal or illegal, come in pursuit of
RC> happiness.

Criminals can not expect to be happy.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

+++ююююю r_941130 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (326)
To: Ken Pangborn 26 Nov 94 22:33:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

KP> MG> There are indeed consequences of a change in the law the
KP> MG> people may not foresee and thus be found unconstitutional.
KP> MG> For example the term limits prop in Washington state was
KP> MG> overturned on the grounds that the fed constitution is, as
KP> MG> it says, the supreme law of the land and thus its statement
KP> MG> of the qualifications for a candidate are the only ones.

KP> I see nothing in the Federal Constitution that
KP> would disallow a state from setting its own requirements
KP> for elected representatives from that state. And if we want
KP> to get sticky on this, from the START of this country, many
KP> states required that candidates for Congress must be
KP> landowners of their district. I could go on down the list.

The issue was decided upon the supremacy issue of the
federal constitution. It provides the conditions and they are
held to be the only conditions. The issue is rather clear when
looked at a bit differently. Perhaps the states want to add
other conditions the the federal constitution. State could
equally state it wants to be represented by people born in the
month of November or that the vote be limited to blue eyed
people.

Allowing one additional requirement allows any additional
requirement.

KP> Well at the moment the Supreme COurts seem to think
KP> that THEY are the REAL government…………. Unelected
KP> and all……..

As they are part of the federal government they are also
part of the federal tyranny.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (327)
To: Thomas Blakely 26 Nov 94 22:55:00
Subject: FLOODING THE MODERN

TB> MG> And just how many days do you think it took to move
TB> MG> 144,000 Hebrews, their slaves, their animals and all their
TB> MG> possessions across wet sand?

TB> Umm…one?

Ten but one is too many when they can see the chariots
coming.

Let’s see, the Coloseum in Richmond holds
TB> 14000, or 1/11th of the number YOU stated (The number is
TB> closer to 1/10th, but I’ll round UP).

The number I use comes from Exodus. If you know of a more
reliable source please give it.

It takes less than
TB> twenty minutes to clear it completely, I know this for a
TB> fact, because I worked there. 20 minutes times 11=240
TB> minutes, or 4 hours. Given that they’d move a third as fast
TB> under heavy load, 12 hours. Still less than a day. Point
TB> being, if the isthmus is even 15 yards wide, it ain’t gonna
TB> take that long.

Do you mean if these people were carrying all they own plus
who knows how many animals and servant and if the exits were all
sea bed mud (meaning they would sink at least up to their ankles)
that is would still take as long?

As for the width, Egypt was in military control of the other
side of where it was narrowest at the time and there is was more
like half a mile wide. So they would have escaped nothing
crossing there but rather have been trapped between Egyptian
forces. So they much have crossed some place else where it was
more than a half mile wide.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA? We don’t need no stinking FOIA!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (328)
To: Linda Terrell 27 Nov 94 03:58:00
Subject: CA PROP 187

LT> TB> I was wondering, what do YOU say to the taxpayers of
LT> TB> CA who must shoulder the burden of 4 billion a year in
LT> TB> handouts to ILLEGAL aliens. All of your
LT> TB> heart-wrenching pleas for the sake of the children
LT> TB> aside…..what do you tell the people that must pay the
LT> TB> bill?

LT> They all but invited the “illegals” there to do their
LT> shit work for them.

So? If they hired illegally, prosecute those criminals
also. Send the employers to jail and the employees back where
they came from.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 4. The Feds can get away with it.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (329)
To: Linda Terrell 27 Nov 94 04:00:00
Subject: CIRCLES, PERFECT.

LT> Depends on if it is an African Sparrow or a European Sparrow. .
LT> . 🙂

swallow

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (330)
To: Chris Walden 27 Nov 94 04:08:00
Subject: DEATH IN NAGASAKI (2яяяяя

CW> You don’t think Hitler would’ve turned on Japan, eventually?

Or vice versa. So what is the point?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 3. Kill ’til no Fed breaths American air.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (331)
To: Bert Byfield 27 Nov 94 04:18:00
Subject: HIROSHIMA

First of all, FDR knew the “surprise” attack was
BB> coming.

Valid historical citation please. I thought not.

Besides the fact that we and the Brits were harassing the
BB> Japanese with oil embargoes and such, there was a report in
BB> Washington 14 hours before Pearl Harbor reporting the invasion
BB> force.

So? The Japs (Nips if you will) were in position to attack
the Brits and were known to be planning to do so. Ever heard any
of the details of how many Brits they ate after they did?

Many naval historians and similar experts had predicted
BB> it, one had written books on how it would happen about twenty
BB> years before it did.

Give the citation and the quotation else we will know you
are making it up again.

BB> Furthermore, it was an outpost, without
BB> strategic ships.

Just what was a “strategic” ship in those days? Please be
specific as to what could be characterized as one in those days
and why. You are only demonstrating your are full of shit.

Most historians think the “surprise” of the US
BB> was due to stupidity and bureaucratic pigheadedness, but a good
BB> case can be made for conspiracy.

A conspiracy to support a conspiracy. Good to see you admit
you are making it up.

You are the one who has taken
BB> the “sucker punch” by believing all the US propaganda.

You are saying Pearl Harbor didn’t happen? How strange.

We were
BB> not fighting back in August 1945, we had already won,

Winning requires the other side to surrender. They did not
despite having lost. They would have been better off if you had
advised them.

and they
BB> were all little more than targets,

Just like Pearl Harbor.

no matter how you would prefer
BB> it to have been. President Truman with his “knockout punch” was
BB> merely murdering hundreds of thousands of harmless civilians with
BB> no war goal at all.

You mean the dumb shits who did not leave the city after all
the leaflets?

That plane, the Enola Gay, is as holy as
BB> Dachau, for the same reasons.

They were not gassed first nor were they forced to stay and
be killed.

BB> LT> memory tainted in any way by politics. Bless her memory!
BB> LT> And bless

BB> Should we bless Auchwitz and Treblinka, too, while we are
BB> at it?

Only if they processed Japanese.

BB> LT> President Truman for sending her, ending the war and saving
BB> LT> hundreds of thousands of lives, mostly Japanese.

BB> You are so quick to beleive any garbage your grade school
BB> teachers tell you.

And you are so quick to believe a man so stupid that he can
not understand the Miranda rights. What an idiot.

BB> LT> “How Japan memorializes Aug. 6, 1945, is certainly its
BB> LT> business, but our historians should stick to the facts.

BB> Like the Jews memorialize the Holocaust, of course.

That is also their business, not ours. Ask Germany that
question.

BB> LT> “Maybe the Smithsonian should mount the ENOLA GAY next to
BB> LT> the hull of the ARIZONA in Pearl Harbor and the script
BB> LT> would then draw no argument from historians.”
BB> LT>
BB> LT> I agree with every word.

BB> You would have goose-stepped with the most fanatic of
BB> Germans had you been in Germany in the thirties. You would
BB> have informed on me and chuckled while they took me away to
BB> torture and death. You should really examine your
BB> political awareness quotient.

I see. I was not aware you approved of the attack upon
Pearl Harbor. So you are really nip? or is there a little jap in
the air?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Today Waco. Gestern USA.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (332)
To: Bert Byfield 27 Nov 94 04:30:00
Subject: DEATH IN HIROSHIMAяяяяяяя

BB> MG> And they could have saved the lives of everyone by
BB> MG> simply not having started the war in the first place. Are
BB> MG> you truly

BB> Who is “they” ?

They are the people you say were so ungodly stupid as to not
know they had lost and kept on fighting. You are the one calling
them idiots.

You are making the fascist mistake of
BB> thinking that all people of a given race are
BB> interchangeable.

Fascists are marxists, fool.

BB> Just like the liberal fascists do.

There are no other kind, fool.

BB> “They” who bombed Pearl Harbor were not the girls and old
BB> men of Hiroshima.

They were the people who did not rise up in rebellion
against that attack and thus supported it.

Very few Japanese people were asked if
BB> they wanted to attack Pearl Harbor.

Tough shit. What did they do to stop it? Nothing. They
approved, period.

Probably the same
BB> percentage of Americans who were asked if they wanted
BB> Bloody Bill Clinton to bomb the Serbs. So there is no
BB> logic in attacking them as if they were the Tokyo General
BB> Staff.

Sure there was. There was an entire generation between the
start of Japan’s murderous war of conquest in the Pacific and
Hiroshima. There was plenty of opportunity to overthrow their
government over such murders and injustice. Later they had to
pay for their compliance.

If the mother’s did not want to risk their children they
should not have conceived them. The dead kids are the fault of
the mother’s having them.

Soldiers wear a uniform to show that they are all
BB> as one, for military purposes. Civilians do NOT wear the
BB> uniform, because they are NOT “the enemy.” They are
BB> PEOPLE. Even if they look funny to you.

Actually only you look funny to me for supporting the attack
on Pearl Harbor and all the civilian deaths that included. But
then, you do not care, you love the Japanese war machine you
bloody bastard. You sound ready to worship the new Hirohito as
soon as you get the chance.

And don’t worry. All the while your feeble little mind
worships him, just like your fellow Japs did, he will lead you to
death just like he lead them. I do not understand how you can be
so stupid as to worship a man any more than I can understand how
your fellow Japs were so primitive, benighted and stupid.

You primitives disgust me.

BB> MG> Your ignorance of air warfare is truly profound. If the

BB> Not so. It is not complicated at all. It is killing
BB> people done from an airplane.

I said you were ignorant, there is no reason to confirm it.

BB> MG> That could have taken years which is why there was to be an
BB> MG> invasion.

BB> All the professionals at work at the time disagree with
BB> you. Perhaps you think you know better, like KP?

As you know better than Japan itself, that they had lost, I
do not think the conceit it all the different. But IF you would
like to prove you are not lying by posting the text of the
surrender proposal negotiations we will all be interested in
reading them. In what book can we find the ver batim transcript
and copies of the written proposals? Be VERY specific.

As you know and I know, they do not exist. Why do you
continue to lie?

BB> MG> Rather you are demonstrating you truly have no
BB> MG> knowledge about the war save what you have picked up from
BB> MG> anti-bomb propaganda.

BB> Don’t be silly. I read a lot of stuff. I know propaganda
BB> from Shinola, which is more than you fascists can say.

But you believe only in fiction for your sources. You are
as primitive as the Japs you love and you emperor.

BB> MG> Where was Japanese honor with the “pleasure women” who
BB> MG> “served” the troops?

BB> I have no idea. It doesn’t sound like there was any. But
BB> I don’t see any relevance. Because Charlie Manson killed
BB> actresses, it is okay to kill actresses?

The only people who could be considered victims were those
who were not actively working to over throw their warmaking
government. All the rest approved of the slaughter their country
was conducting.

Two wrongs do not
BB> make a right.

Ah, I am impressed by the depth of your understanding of the
human condition.

BB> MG> * RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order
BB> to save them.

BB> Which is okay if they are Japanese kids, right?

Their parents attacked and refused to surrender and were too
damn stupid to leave the cities when warned. Perhaps that is why
they have a higher IQ. The bombings killed off all the dumb
ones.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Of the people, by the people, and for the people or else!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (333)
To: Bert Byfield 27 Nov 94 04:47:00
Subject: DEATH IN NAGASAKI (2/3)

BB> MG> BB> Cheap talk in this case. Our existence was NEVER in danger
BB> MG> BB> in World War II.
BB> MG>
BB> MG> You are blessed with perfect hindsight.

BB> No, I just read a lot.

Same thing. Also very stupid.

BB> MG> The Germans were in ruin before we
BB> MG> BB> entered the war (retreating from Stalingrad since 1943,
BB> MG> BB> D-Day was 1944)

BB> MG> I find it interesting you believe the US entered the war on
BB> MG> D-Day. Do you know anything about that war?

BB> Do you want me to be impressed by our sporting events in
BB> North Africa? Gimme a break. Our freight shipments to
BB> England? What?

I have no idea what you are going to be impressed with. I
only know that by your statement you are a lying, ignorant fool
and have no knowledge of interest whatsoever about WW II. If
that is not clear enough you are also a stupid shit. Is there
anything else?

BB> MG> BB> and Japan was just a mouse that roared.

BB> MG> Sort of what the Russians thought until the Japanese
BB> MG> destroyed their fleet. (For your next question, name that
BB> MG> war.)

BB> Tsar Nicholas II, Port Arthur, 1905.

Very good. And guess what? The US intervened to stop the
war before Japan took territorial gains despite your ignorance.

But Russia never had
BB> the industrial power that we had.

So fucking WHAT? Now you simply claiming they were stupid
Japanese who started a war with no hope of winning on top of
admitting they were too stupid to surrender.

And geez that fleet had
BB> to sail around the world to get there. Nikkie was just mad
BB> that some jealous Japanese husband had put a sword scar
BB> across his forehead when Nikkie was a tourist in Japan.

And what act put Japan in control of the sea in that war?
Despite your claim that is.

BB> MG> BB> You are soul-sister to the barbarians that deny the
BB> MG> BB> holocaust. You just deny a different one.

BB> MG> Have you forgotten the cannibal Japanese soldiers?
BB> MG> Did you ever know about them?

BB> Go for it. Give details. I’m waiting… Anyway it is
BB> irrelevant. Charlie Manson’s actions do not justify murder
BB> by decent people.

It is good to see you see Squeaky Fromm to be good people
just like your Emperor worshipping primitive, ignorant Jap soul
mates. We know you love your emperor but we are tired of hearing
how his worshipping supporters were innocent. If they did not
support the war they had a duty to overthrow their government and
stop the war. They did not. End of discussion.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 3. Kill ’til no Fed breaths American air.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (334)
To: Gary Braswell 27 Nov 94 05:06:00
Subject: MURDER IN HIROSHIMA

GB> BERT BYFIELD Scribed:
GB> ***************************************************************************

GB> BB>Just like we would feel if our army had been destroyed and the
GB> BB>Russians were pouring into our country from Canada and Mexico,
GB> BB>like the movie *Red Dawn*.
GB> ***************************************************************************

GB> First of all, Red Dawn was a movie and second of all, US
GB> forces never poured into mainland Japan. The code of
GB> Bushido was in effect before the war and had been for many
GB> centuries. It did not matter if they were losing or
GB> winning, they still felt surrender was unacceptable.

You have to learn something about your correspondent. He
holds all forms of fiction to be the best way to learn things.
The boy is a whacko.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (335)
To: Bert Byfield 27 Nov 94 05:11:00
Subject: MURDER IN HIROSHIMA 1/2

BB> LT> BB> They don’t. But civilized people should. And let me try
BB> LT> BB> to tell you again. VERY FEW OF THOSE CIVILIANS IN
BB> LT> BB> HIROSHIMA AND NAGASAKI AND TOKYO WERE BUTCHERS. To destroy
BB> LT> BB> a city in Japan because they are of the same race as some
BB> LT> BB> soldiers who you are mad at because they killed
BB> LT> BB> indiscriminately at Bataan is criminal.

BB> LT> Where is your outrage over the fireboming of Dresden?
BB> LT> Destroying Caen, France just after D Day to render it
BB> LT> useless for the Germans?

BB> Your forgot to respond to what I said. You are just trying to
BB> change the subject because you are wrong.

She did. YOU have been trying to make an issue of race
since you started this shit. You were given examples of “same
race, same action” and you were too stupid to notice it. Of
course if you were not too stupid then you deliberately chose to
ignore it as it would demonstrate you are a lying bastard for
introducing race into the matter. Even though, even today, it is
primary in Japan.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Today Waco. Gestern USA.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (336)
To: Ken Pangborn 27 Nov 94 05:14:00
Subject: NEWT/GOPACGATE

KP> … Q. What do feminists and the Borg have in common? The Borg are nicer!

Prepare to be castrated.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in charge of Waco operations.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (337)
To: Beetle Maniac 27 Nov 94 05:18:00
Subject: NEWT/GOPACGATE

BM> With regard to “moments of silence” in schools, I would
BM> object to any circumstances where such were conducted
BM> in classrooms with a “captive” classroom of kids.
BM> Those who do not wish to participate would almost
BM> invariably wind up being singled out by those who did
BM> as “different.” What I would find less objectionable
BM> is if an empty rooms was used where those students who
BM> wished to participate could gather prior to the start
BM> of the day, i.e. before homeroom, etc. But that’s just
BM> an idea off the top of my head — i.e., not completely
BM> thought through ….

I can imagine the destruction this brought upon the country
between 1788 and 1963. I also note the improvement since then.

Is this the worst you can come up with?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in charge of Waco operations.

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (338)
To: Bob Sillyheimer 27 Nov 94 05:23:00
Subject: OLD NEWS

BS> A friend of mine met someone in the 1970s who claimed he
BS> was a hunting guide up in Canada.
BS>
BS> He claimed that when Ronnie was governor of California he
BS> used to come up on hunting trips, always requesting this
BS> guide. He claims Reagan and he had sex.

Right. Is there any substantiation of this or will you
accept my love affair with Loni Anderson?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco! Never again! Vote Libertarian!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (339)
To: Bob Sillyheimer 27 Nov 94 05:25:00
Subject: RUSSION “REFUGEES”

BS> These “””refugees””” are not and never were persecuted.

You have missed something significant in your education.
Please try to compensate for it..

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Of the people, by the people, and for the people or else!

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (340)
To: Michael Chester 27 Nov 94 05:26:00
Subject: WHO KILLED CHRIST?яяяяяяя

MC> Again, I cannot discern what point you are raising…as far
MC> as ‘original sin’, I am not sure about it’s truth nor do I
MC> care, as it is rather academic, for we all at some point
MC> sin…’original sin’ as a concept arrives from the question
MC> how can an act of sin produce a creation free of sin…who
MC> cares? We are all certainly sinners…

Do you really want to know who killed Joshua? The Jews
killed Joshua. They stoned him for blasphemy and hung his body
in a tree as was the proper punishment. It is referred to in
Thessalonians, the old written document on the subject.

The other stories in the gospels are fantasies.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Flame on!” — Janet “The Torch” Reno

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

From: Matt Giwer Area: Controv – (341)
To: All 27 Nov 94 15:54:00
Subject: DEMS ON 94

The Dems hold the election was not in favor of the Contract
With America by saying the voter generally didn’t know about it.
Let’s work with that premise.

The Dems ran against Reaganomics and that was rejected. Does
that mean the Dems failed to communicate their anti-Reaganomics
position or that the voters want Reaganomics?

Is it the Dem claim that the voters did not vote for any
organized position that presented to them?

Fine. That leaves us with the necessary Dem position that
the switch was based upon nothing involved in any campaign but on
their own perceptions.

“Their own perceptions” were that Dems should retire early.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Liberals roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at

®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ

The Aktion Reinhard Death Camps

Auschwitz Birkenau

Bergen-Belsen

Buchenwald

Chelmno

Dachau

Maidanek (Majdanek)

Mauthausen

Nordhausen

Belzec

Treblinka

Mittelbau Dora

Gusen

Westerbork

Matthias Giwer

John Hron

Ken McVay

Steve Thomas

Fairview Technologies

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood: Islamic Extremists and the…

The Heritage Front

The Anti-Defamation League

Giwer, controv 10-1994

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials