Documents

Giwer, debate 10-1995

LG> LG> Yes, as a matter of fact there is. That’s why the founders
LG> LG> intended there be a wall of separation between church and
LG> LG> state.

LG> MG> Which paper?

LG> ??? I haven’t the foggiest idea what you have in mind.

Federalist Paper. This “wall of separation” comes from a
letter by Jefferson who was out of the country when the
Constitution was being drafted.

Regardless of the desirability of this separation, I know of
no source of a clear intention of same. I am interested in
knowing of a source.

®®юю R_9510 ююЇЇ
+++ююююю r_951002 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1078)
To: Lester Garrett 25 Sep 95 13:25:10
Subject: 1st-Religion
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Pity the BATF. They never did get to search Mt. Carmel.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1079)
To: Lester Garrett 25 Sep 95 13:32:10
Subject: Disgusting Journalism

LG> MG> . . .Now comes the government in every federal case. It
LG> MG> uses the FBI Forensic Laboratory. That laboratory has been
LG> MG> accused by one of it senior members of falsifying test
LG> MG> results. Back to your suspected fatal illness, would you
LG> MG> use that laboratory if they were accused of slanting the
LG> MG> test results in favor of it causing you to die? Do you
LG> MG> have a death wish? . . .

LG> Matt, this is the kind of disgustingly sickening
LG> suggestively misleading journalism which belongs in a trash
LG> can. Rather than accurately reflect the charges leveled by
LG> Dr. Whitehurst (you do realize that they are still only
LG> charges, Matt, do you not?), you chose instead to
LG> misrepresent them in order to suit your purpose. Frankly,
LG> I’m both disappointed and disgusted. Dr. Whitehurst has
LG> been careful to state that the problem is not, as you
LG> broadly and misleadingly suggest above, with the laboratory
LG> per se, but rather and only with a very few individuals who
LG> work there. Dr. Henry Lee, who is generally acknowledged
LG> as one of the country’s leading forensic experts, has
LG> characterized the FBI lab as among the best there is and
LG> has nothing but high praise for _most_ of the people who
LG> work there.

Pardon me but did I miss an investigation of these charges?
Did I in some manner miss a listing of all the cases in which
these few individuals developed evidence? Did I miss all of
those analysis being re-done? Did I hear correctly that these
individuals have been promoted?

Am I the only one who smells another coverup here? And what
is the only approach we have found that can even begin to
pressure the government into investigating itself? It is what
finally got at least a hearing on Ruby Ridge and finally got a
hearing under oath on Waco.

LG> No, you do not say it’s the entire entire lab that’s bad.
LG> Worse. You suggest it and then move on. And you treat as
LG> yet unsubstiantiated charges as though they were proven
LG> facts. If you keep up in this vein I suggest you take a
LG> remedial course in the ethics of good journalism.

Since when is an opinion piece journalism?

If these allegations are true, and the FBI does not appear
interested in finding out, then there are likely people in prison
right now based upon falsified evidence. Until these people are
given an opportunity to apply their skills to the fast food
industry, until the evidence is re-examined, and until all of the
cases are re-opened, there is no reason to deal with this
lightly.

Now to the central question, would you use that laboratory
for your medical tests? Remember, you have no idea who will
perform the tests, no idea which tests have been falsified in
other cases, but you know the same people are their with
promotions. Would you? It is only your life.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * EYE 4 NEWT
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1080)
To: Bob Klahn 25 Sep 95 13:51:10
Subject: IR OPINION FROM JAN 8

BK> BK>> BK>>always been, why was this fire detecting equipment
BK> BK>> BK>>in use in daylight unless a fire was expected? And
BK> BK>> BK>>if a fire was expected, why?
BK> …
BK> BK>> Of course you won’t get an answer if you don’t.

BK> MG> I was under the impression rhetorical was the proper
BK> MG> description of the question.
BK> MG>
BK> MG> If you think there is an alternate answer, please feel
BK> MG> free to post it.

BK> Because the Waco Wackos *WERE* wacko. And the govt
BK> officials knew it.

You mean to say the government was expecting mass suicide by
fire and went ahead anyway?

BK> BK>> MG> Now we are back to where we started. Said people had
BK> BK>> MG> to be outside if moving. Visible light is greater
BK> BK>> MG> superior to IR in every respect for that purpose. And
BK> BK>> MG> what “tracking”? Seeing only as on a TV screen.

BK> BK>> They are allowed to standstill once in a while.

BK> MG> What does that have to do with anything?

BK> You said they had to be outside if moving. That implies
BK> they can be inside if they standstill.

I still do not see your point.

1) Watching not tracking is the proper term to use on a
CRT display. There is NO WAY to “track” in any automated sense.
It is all the Mk 1 eyeball.

2) The watching was done with a field of view of around
100 feet (viewing some raw pictures it is more like 200 feet.)

3) It is not practical to see anyone in such a field of
view in any type of light.

BK> MG> WHAT people were outside in need of being tracked when
BK> MG> there were government personnel all over the grounds all
BK> MG> morning? Any

BK> They should have called in some of the experts from Ruby
BK> Ridge. Then they could have shot all these Davidians
BK> wandering around outside. Maybe the seige would have ended
BK> sooner. The only reason I can think of for not doing such
BK> a sensible thing is, they didn’t want to kill people. That
BK> couldn’t be true, could it?

Read it again. The government types were outside all
morning, the Davidians were inside. And the same people were at
Waco but they apparently did not have shoot to kill orders.

BK> MG> “tracking” was being done by the Mk 1 Mod 0 eyeball looking
BK> MG> at a CRT.

BK> All these people wandering around outside, in daylight,
BK> and they were watching them on CRT’s? No binoculars? No
BK> direct observation?

Government people outside. So why was their a need for
a plane overhead?

BK> BK>> MG> And from that height, angle and field of view a person would
BK> BK>> MG> be about the size of an “i” if you are reading this at 50 lines,
BK> BK>> MG> half that at 25 lines. And that “person” is simply a different
BK> BK>> MG> shade of grey.

BK> BK>> What height, angle and field of view?

BK> MG> We have the size of the building and the view that was
BK> MG> shown at the hearing. Given the time it took to orbit and
BK> MG> the stall speed of fixed wing aircraft then giving it the
BK> MG> best of all

BK> No helicopters? No telescopic lenses?

They said, under oath, it was fixed wing. Given the
necessary altitude it certainly did have a telephoto lens.

BK> MG> assumptions, the plane was at least 5000 feet up. The angle is

BK> A mile up? Why not a U2 or SR-71 while you’re at it?

You saw the tape didn’t you?

BK> …
BK> BK>> No thanks, you just keep jumping on those republicans.

BK> MG> Vote Libertarian!

BK> The day there is a Libertarian candidate who has a platfor
BK> that sounds somewhat better than, “Take care of number
BK> 1.”

Who is number one in your life? Your family or the people on the
other side of town?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Critics of The Bell Curve cheated on the test.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1081)
To: Lester Garrett 25 Sep 95 14:32:10
Subject: MILITIA

LG> In a message to Bob Klahn, dated Sep 20 1995, Matt Giwer wrote:

LG> BK> The constitution assigns authority for organizing
LG> BK> the militia to the federal govt.

LG> MG> . . .Would you care to cite the provision you you can
LG> MG> find in the Constitution?

LG> BK> . . .Sect. 8. The Congress shall have power . . .

LG> BK> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining,
LG> BK> the militia. . .

LG> BK> You must be feeling mellow, giving me such an easy one.

LG> MG> And here is the organization.

LG> MG> “311. Militia: Composition and classes . . .

LG> MG> What fault and upon what basis do you find Congress has not
LG> MG> organized the militia? Upon what basis do you find a
LG> MG> problem with the unorganized militia as provided for by
LG> MG> Congress?

LG> Are you responding at cross-purposes? I don’t see the
LG> relevance of your reply to Bob’s initial statement (above).
LG> As quoted by you he stated, correctly, that that the
LG> Constitution gives Congress the power to organize the
LG> militia. What relevance has your citation of 10 USC 311 on
LG> his claim? Or did you, perhaps, intended to respond to
LG> another portion of his message which you did not quote and
LG> which, therefore, makes your reply seem to have nothing to
LG> do with what you have in fact quoted?

Through long experience I have found that if I give the
second response first it appears to vanish into a black hole
every time I use it even on the same person. This is simply a
variation on the approach to see if it will stick this way.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Paralegal? What is your typing speed?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1082)
To: Bob Klahn 25 Sep 95 14:37:10
Subject: USCONSTITUTION

BK> …
BK> BK>> MG> You work and you are on Medicare? How strange. How
BK> BK>> MG> do you manage it? And how did they manage it without
BK> BK>> MG> changing the law?

BK> BK>> Why would that be strange? Nothing to prevent it. The fact
BK> BK>> that I am not over 62 and not handicapped would make it
BK> BK>> strange, but not the fact that I work. My grandmother
BK> BK>> worked part time till she was 72. Got medicare also. Then,
BK> BK>> when she was 72 she went back to working full time.

BK> MG> Interesting. But then how did they do it without changing
BK> MG> the law?

BK> What law did they have to change? She was old enough,
BK> retired, earned income low enough.

The original statement, now scrolled off of the edit screen,
related to losing coverage and having to pay more in the present.
I was inquiring as to how that was possible as no law had been
changed.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If Reno were a real general, she would get a section eight.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1090)
To: Linda Terrell 26 Sep 95 01:16:10
Subject: Bible

LT> MG> LT> the Son of God. Trying to follow an act like that could
LT> MG> LT> leave you pretty limp. . .
LT> MG> LT> At least, that how it all comes across to me.

LT> MG> You have had a strange sex life. Was there ever a
LT> MG> time you did not know you had had sex such that an angel
LT> MG> had to tell you about it? Any man can do better than that
LT> MG> just by having bad breath.

LT> I said that is how it comes across when I READ the
LT> myth. Mary was made unconscious for the “procedure” She
LT> had to be told. An angel appeared to Joseph to tell him
LT> that he wasn’t the “daddy” God was. And they both
LT> swallowed the story! And apparently, so did most of the
LT> world they knew at that time.

Sounds like god is a Grey.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If Aristole was straight,why’d he write Posterior Analytics?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1091)
To: C. T. Day 26 Sep 95 01:21:10
Subject: Religion

CD> Which paper?

CD> Well, it certainly wasn’t the U.S. Constitution!
CD> Actually, that “separation of Church & State” bit came from
CD> a black-robed egomaniac who thought he could interpret what
CD> the Founding Fathers had originally said, which was that
CD> the government was NOT to interfere with the people’s right
CD> to worship whom they will, and not to favor any one church
CD> as a “state” religion. Otherwise, why do the House &
CD> Senate, each, start off the business day with a religious
CD> invocation. The First Amendment says NOTHING about any
CD> so-called “Separation of Church & State”; I’ll trust the
CD> Founding Fathers’ phraseology over that of some dismal
CD> political activist with a black robe, ANY TIME!!!

It is a term that comes from a letter by Jefferson to some
one and of course Jefferson was ambassador to France at the time
the constitution was written and I believe remained so until
after the BOR had been adopted.

As it is not in the constitution then the only other
approved source is the Federalist Papers (and if unapproved, then
SC does not have the power to find laws unconstitutional.) For
better or worse, the source of this interpretation or lack of
same certainly needs be identified.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * One BATF, one militia.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1123)
To: Lester Garrett 26 Sep 95 15:21:10
Subject: LAW CONF

KP> KP> You’re aware that Hirschfeld was disbarred?

KP> MG> He was in trouble at one point but was he disbarred? I
KP> MG> didn’t find any evidence of that and lots of people were
KP> MG> after him at the time he was in trouble and was obviously
KP> MG> practicing.

KP> You mean when he RAN from the law and hid in the
KP> hills in Mexico? They caught him. He lost an appeal and the
KP> Arizona Bar kicked him out! Gave him 30 days to close his
KP> practice under the STRICT supervision of a REAL Arizona
KP> lawyer. Then fined him and ordered restitution to clients
KP> that is somewhere between $60,000 and $90,000. You weren’t
KP> in Arizona Matt.

I must have been asleep that week. Thanks.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If cabbages are legal, are 1000 cabbages illegal?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1124)
To: Herne 26 Sep 95 15:25:10
Subject: Bible

HH> MG> Zeus appeared as a bull (swan?) (or both?) to do so.
HH> MG> It is SOP for deities.

HH> I guess being God, you don’t have to abide by your own rules.

It’s good to be the god.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Let God sort out the BATF.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1131)
To: Geraden 27 Sep 95 01:42:10
Subject: 1/4 Liar Clinton

GG> > thought I would dust off some quotes the Great Liar uttered
GG> > the first time he ran. Here then, is proof that the garbage
GG> > that spews out of Bill Clinton’s open sewer of a mouth is
GG> > just that: garbage. Read it and weep, Clinton apologists:

GG> Have you *EVER* known of a president in this century who
GG> hasn’t “spewed a lot of lies” to get in office? I haven’t,
GG> especially the Republican ones…

Another person who admits Clinton is no better than any
Republican. The ranks are swelling.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The power to tax is the power to destroy but regulation’s OK
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1132)
To: Anna Dobbyn 27 Sep 95 01:46:10
Subject: 1ST “LADY” AIN’T SHIT

AD> Anna, who thinks they’re both a couple of turds…

You vote for one turd you get them both.

Paraphrased from HRC in April 1992 the month before she
turned out 45 perfect full size brioche in a professional oven to
demonstrate her homemaking skills.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Militias and Clinton. Even paranoids have enemies.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1133)
To: Tim Boothby 27 Sep 95 01:49:10
Subject: 1ST “LADY” AIN’T SHIT

TB> > Did you read anything in history about Mrs.
TB> > Hoover’s disallowing ANYONE to see her husband during his
TB> > illness, and (supposedly) relaying his orders?? She went
TB> > so far as to fire a cabinet member, because of his
TB> > objections to her machinations.

TB> Wilson’s wife ran things while her husband recovered from a
TB> mild stroke. I’m seeing a trend here. 🙂

Billie has had a stroke.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Chipmunks roasting on an open fire, Jack Frost nipping at th
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1134)
To: Lester Garrett 27 Sep 95 02:09:10
Subject: A Powell Presidency

LG> AH> Yea or Nay on Powell for President? If Yea, as Independent
LG> AH> or Republican?

LG> The more I hear about his positions and the more I think
LG> about it, the more I like the idea of Powell as the
LG> Republican candidate. Based on his interviews and comments
LG> to date,

I don’t know what you are hearing. I keep hearing a
straddle on every issue just like Clinton. Lets face it.
Whatever his positions are, you are going to have to buy his book
to get an idea, and at the moment he has one objective, to sell
books.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, The Man From Hot Springs.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1135)
To: Bob Klahn 27 Sep 95 02:43:10
Subject: CADET HAZING

BK> BK>> Pretty much the same thing. The military manages to train
BK> BK>> women without scalping them.

BK> JM> If it works for women, why does the military still shave
BK> JM> the guys heads? Are they not discriminating against males
BK> JM> by doing something that doesn’t have to be done for
BK> JM> training?

BK> BK>> Equal is not identical.

BK> JM> Then just what does EQUAL mean?

BK> If you and I are both E-5s, we hold equal rank, but I may
BK> be AF and you may be Army. Not identical. We get the same
BK> pay, though.

Equal work or equal rate? Equal accomplishment to get there
or unequal accomplishment to get there?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “I take full responsibility” means “Don’t blame me.” J. Reno
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1137)
To: Bob Klahn 27 Sep 95 03:07:10
Subject: FAULKNER 01

BK> BK>> Which is reasonable when women pay the bills also. It is
BK> BK>> not a private club.

BK> MG> Actually they do not, taxpayers in the state do and they
BK> MG> maintain three women only colleges.

BK> Do any of those colleges offer a comparable program? If
BK> they had offered such a program they might well have won
BK> their case. As it is they are setting up what appears to
BK> be a watered down version. They might win it on that, but
BK> I suspect before too much longer the barriers will fall.

The claims of comparable are of interest of course but then
the only issue here was not getting a comparable course ready
before the fall session opened. However it is not clear what
comparable means in this case.

BK> MG> The reasonableness is also in question. I am not
BK> MG> aware of any pretention of the court to have 180 years
BK> MG> experience in setting standards for military colleges.

BK> Nor do the courts have any measureable experience in
BK> technology, medicine, surveying, etc. Yet they settle
BK> patent, malpractice or land disputes all the time. That is
BK> where expert witnesses come in.

Would you care to tell me which other cases exist where the
courts have set such standards?

BK> The simple solution, as I see it, would be to have a
BK> review by unbiased experts to determine if a woman can
BK> complete the course of study, and if there is a purpose in
BK> haveing women take that course of study. The submit that
BK> report to the court, which will decide the matters of law.
BK> Absent such a review all we have is the admission by the
BK> Citadel’s administration that she did qualify. (as cited
BK> in the court’s decision.)

The court has already decided women can not complete the
course requirements in ordering 40% physical standards. The
opinion of the court in that matter is not in question.

BK> BK>> The *ONLY* grounds on which they can set standards is the
BK> BK>> requirements of the job they are training students for.
BK> BK>> As long as the job, (military officer) is open to women
BK> BK>> they have no grounds to refuse women.

BK> MG> They are training for combat army officer which is not
BK> MG> open to women. They are training people to be the KIND of
BK> MG> officer that would show up in Vietnam with their own sawed
BK> MG> off and .357 ready to head into combat. Nothing short of
BK> MG> that.

BK> Any officer like that would be likely to be shipped back
BK> to the states for assignment to a padded room. Or should
BK> be.

Ollie North, Annapolis grad, for example? Sounds like you
don’t know your military very well.

BK> MG> Their tradition is to produce officers that formed up
BK> MG> and trained volunteers to march to the front and push back
BK> MG> the Yankees or to go direct from graduation to front line
BK> MG> duty assignments as in the World Wars. They simply did not
BK> MG> train anything else — until the court ordered it.

BK> Like I said, if the military will restrict Citadel grads
BK> to combat units only, I will accept that they have to be
BK> all men. Don’t think I’d want to serve under one, in any
BK> assignment, though.

On the other side of the picture the military prohibits
women from any kind of combat duty. Because of that, the
training is wasted on women. Thus resources must be wasted on
people who can never use them.

BK> MG> I draw your attention to something parallel. The US
BK> MG> has one unit that does this also. They are called the
BK> MG> Marines. They are not looking for a few good persons.

BK> Oh yes they are. There are plenty of female marines. And
BK> they also have plenty of positions that do not take their
BK> people into combat. I work with one.

They were called BAMs in the old days. They still should
be.

BK> Also, we have quite a few ex-marines around the company,
BK> and a common consensus they are all somewhat half a bubble
BK> off level.

Not including the woman of course.

BK> MG> The issue here is different in any event. Prior
BK> MG> decisions permitting women into men’s schools was that
BK> MG> education is gender neutral. That was extended in this
BK> MG> case to mean all forms of education. The general statement
BK> MG> is that they train leaders and the means of that training
BK> MG> is military.

BK> Which is reasonable, see my previous comments.

Women can not be combat leaders by policy according to
congress or ability according to the court.

BK> MG> The court chose to take it upon itself to claim that
BK> MG> the school could teach that leadership under the conditions
BK> MG> of the court rather than under the conditions of the
BK> MG> experts. Whether or not that is possible is open to
BK> MG> speculation.

BK> When you pick your own experts, you reach any conclusions you want.

I have yet to hear anyone claim a woman can be trained to
lead men when substandard performance and ability is mandated by
**
Continued in the next message…
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1138)
To: Delores E Rowe 27 Sep 95 04:07:10
Subject: Usconstitution

DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>Can’t afford to. Good dictionaries are expensive, and
DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>the conservatives have been so busy reducing the incomes
DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>of us working people, and our medical coverage, that I
DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>find myself paying increasing portions of increasing
DR>MG>DR>MG>BK>BK>>medical bills, with a decreasing real income.

DR> MG> Lets review the bidding. The allegation is in th first
DR> MG>paragraph.

DR> If you are referring to the first paragraph at the top of
DR> this posting, Bob indicated that dictionaries were not in
DR> his budget because:
DR>
DR> A) Increased taxes
DR>
DR> B) Increased deductibles on his medical insurance and
DR> reduced coverages
DR>
DR> Result: increased expenses, less income. IMO, that did not
DR> indicate in any way, that he was on Medicare. However, in
DR> response to your erroneous assumption, he went on to
DR> explain how it IS entirely possible to work AND be on
DR> Medicare.
DR>
DR> You then indicated that some law would have to have been
DR> changed in order for this to occur.
DR>
DR> In my posting, I pointed out where this was not so and
DR> provided a source as evidence of the fact.

The allegation is that “conservatives HAVE BEEN so busy”. I
pointed out that as no law has changed this can not be a true
statement.

DR> MG> Would you care to explain how the allegations in the
DR> MG> first paragraph can have occurred prior to any laws having
DR> MG> changed?

DR> What law are you talking about, Matt? There apparently is
DR> not a law that says you can’t work and receive Medicare, so
DR> what law are you talking about?

I presume it is now clarified.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Don’t burn our liberties to protect our symbols.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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_951004 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1130)
To: Anna Dobbyn 30 Sep 95 15:28:10
Subject: 1ST “LADY” AIN’T SHIT

AD> MG> Paraphrased from HRC in April 1992 the month before she
AD> MG> turned out 45 perfect full size brioche in a professional
AD> MG> oven to demonstrate her homemaking skills.

AD> I’ll outbake, and out-do her in anything else too. She’s
AD> not about anything I can’t handle.

No doubt but would the media seriously report that you had
down what she claimed at the photo-op? No skepticism whatsoever.
Not even a hint of a snicker. The who story including front page
picture in the Wash Post reported deadpan.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Afraid of the UN? So was your old man.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1132)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Sep 95 22:43:10
Subject: CP. NEW

MP> MG> That means he is being ordered to serve in a army other
MP> MG> than the one to which he took an oath. Most of the issue
MP> MG> could be defused were there no requirement to wear the UN
MP> MG> insignia.

MP> I am sure if you looked somewhere in Military regs you
MP> would find that he is expected to serve where the US
MP> military assigns him.

Where and under who are different issues. How about a
paranoid example? While serving with the UN he receives orders
from the Pakistani (the EEO commander of the week) to start
shooting the Canadian contingent? What is he to do?

Follow orders of course, he is under orders from that
commander. What is the penalty for disobedience of a direct
order? Now who does Canada complain to? Certainly not the US.
Either the UN or Pakistan, most likely the former.

Did you just say it can’t happen? Why not? What could
prevent it?

MP> WOuld you negate Korea.

Orders in Korea came directly from the US President.

MP> Nato , what about exchanges.

Even in exchanges between our Army and our Air Force, there
is no change of uniform or additional device indicating
membership in the other service.

MP> I served with US military on assignment to Canada and they
MP> often wore local insignias. For example the 415 Sqn
MP> shoulder patch was worn by Americans. Two Canadians died
MP> this weekend on a US AWACS air craft in Alaska, no doube
MP> they wore sqn patches.

A unit designation is not a national designation. May I
suggest they (you) did not wear anything saying “US Army” or its
equivalent?

MP> Spc New is a total asshole…. period.

You don’t know a damned thing about him save what he has
stated are his intentions to his superiors. Are you going to be
in Atlanta next year for the conclusion jumping event?

®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: Debate – (1141)
To: James Littlehammer 30 Sep 95 05:51:10
Subject: 1st-religion

JL> LG> ??? I haven’t the foggiest idea what you have in mind.

JL> MG> Federalist Paper. This “wall of separation” comes from a
JL> MG> letter by Jefferson who was out of the country when the
JL> MG> Constitution was being drafted.

JL> True that’s where the actual phrase cane from, but there
JL> is no doubt that he nonetheless exerted a lot of
JL> influence. As for the Federalist Papers, I’ll do a search
JL> in the next few days and see what I can find.

I’ll be waiting.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Pity the BATF. They never did get to search Mt. Carmel.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1142)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Sep 95 05:52:10
Subject: CHRISTIAN COALITION

MP> MP> Is medicare a work of the devil. Didn’t Christ say
MP> MP> something about helping the poor ? Gad no wonder I could
MP> MP> never be born again, I have all these silly ideas about
MP> MP> good will to fellow man…

MP> MG> Where is it written there is merit in forcing others to be
MP> MG> charitable?

MP> If it ain’t in the US constitution it ain’t anywhere right Matt ?

I will admit any acknowledged source on the subject of
charity that you wish to discuss. Which one holds that forcing
others to give is meritorious towards the virtue of charity?

So far as I am aware all that address the matter are
religious in nature, that is authoritative beyond question of
being mere human opinion.

If you would like to cite any such work endorsing force as
meritorious I will be happy to hear of it. For the moment we can
even skip the validity of the religion.

After you take ZERO screens for your examples, perhaps you
can, in your own words, tell me why force equals charity.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Keystone Kops + Gestapo = BATF
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1143)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Sep 95 05:57:10
Subject: CP. NEW

MP> MP> As a person who once served in a UN peace keeping force
MP> MP> ( Cyprus 1971-1972) I would say Spc New is a total
MP> MP> asshole…..

MP> MG> You need to learn what our constitution is like.

MP> Tell that to Korean vets or even NATO forces. Hmmm what
MP> that about learning about your constitution ?

US troops were not under other than US command in either
case. Perhaps you need to learn what that means?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Exon — X OFF
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1144)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Sep 95 22:59:10
Subject: MICHAEL NEW – A REAL

MP> MG> Asking you what device on your uniform identified you as a
MP> MG> member of the UN military? None? Then what is it you think
MP> MG> is a parallel?

MP> Hmm the man is in NATO with a distinctive ID Patch and he
MP> is going Ape shit about a UN patch. Yep sure sign of a
MP> total ass hole.

You are obviously unaware that the US deal with NATO is that
US troops are never under the command of any but US officers in a
direct like to the president. There was a similar problem in WW
II which contributed to Eisenhower being the SAC. If Monty had
had the title Eisenhower would have been forced to go his own
way as he reported only to the president.

MP> MG> You should realize our constitution is quite different from
MP> MG> what you folks do not have.

MP> Ours was patriated in 1982, just the odd hicupp in getting
MP> it ratified ;). Such as a referendum on Quebec Independence
MP> Oct 30.

And since you were there, what is the wording of the oath
you took when joining the 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: Debate – (1146)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Sep 95 22:35:10
Subject: CP. NEW

MP> MG> Nor can they be required to obey illegal orders which is
MP> MG> the point of this matter. How can someone be ordered to
MP> MG> wear the uniform of an army of which he is not a member?

MP> When will you evern get it ….. Just like checkered paint,
MP> a yard of shore line, a sky hook…there is no such thing
MP> as a UN Army, let alone a UN uniform. In World War Two the
MP> Allies did not dress alike, in Korea a UN action the troops
MP> did not dress alike….etc ad nauseum. In a UN Force you
MP> wear a Blue Beret and a UN arm band. Beleive me I’ve worn
MP> them. But we are under Canadian command and the other
MP> troops were under their national command. There is an over
MP> all mission purpose and a force commander. But then so is
MP> there in NATO. I know this is a major disappointment to the
MP> UN / New World Order ? Someone is under my bed brand of
MP> ignorant paranoia but it is sadly the truth.

You appear unable to separate the issues here. There is no
stated or suspected connection with any new world order talk.

This is an issue of whether or not an American (call it a
quirk of our system) has any obligation to participate in
activity whose orders do not originate with the president. As to
the Canadian system and what you may have worn is clearly
something from another legal system.

MP> But then Tom Valentine and assorted nuts ( more
MP> peanuts) make fortunes playing on this sort of thing.

Never heard of him.

But if it makes you happen to invent a

<A href=”new_world_order.html”>Wearing UN devices.</A>

then continue to do so. I have yet to hear of it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * It is better to be a hammer than a nail.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1149)
To: Lester Garrett 30 Sep 95 23:06:10
Subject: Robert Hirschfeld

LG> In a message to All, dated Sep 21 1995, Ken Pangborn wrote:

LG> KP> Has anyone updated the saga of Bobby Hirschfeld’s fate?
LG> KP> Here is the latest I have been told. Bobby has been
LG> KP> disbarred. He was ordered by the Arizona Supremes to close
LG> KP> his practice in 30 days UNDER SUPERVISION OF A LAWYER.
LG> KP> (This was a couple months ago) And he faces about $60,000
LG> KP> in fines and restitution. Bobby lost an appeal. He claims
LG> KP> to be taking it to the U.S. Supreme Court! . . .

LG> It angers me when something like this happens. I have just
LG> gotten off the phone with the Arizona State Bar’s office.
LG>
LG> Robert Hirschfeld has *_NOT_* been disbarred.
LG>
LG> According to the office of the Disciplinary Clerk of the
LG> State Bar of Arizona, Hirschfeld was “placed on interim
LG> suspension on 6/8/95.” He was required to cease practice
LG> until the matter is resolved and is not “authorize to
LG> practice law until the disciplinary matters have been
LG> concluded”. A disciplinary hearing to determine what
LG> action, if any, may be taken against him is currently
LG> pending before a hearing committee which will ultimately
LG> make recommendations to the Arizona Supreme Court. Until
LG> we know the results of that hearing, any comments on what
LG> might happen are nothing more than speculation and should
LG> be treated accordingly.

Thanks, posted back to KP.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Marijuana!Addictive killer!” Bill “I didn’t inhale” Clinton
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (1158)
To: Anna Dobbyn 30 Sep 95 22:32:10
Subject: 1ST “LADY” AIN’T SHIT

AD> MG> Paraphrased from HRC in April 1992 the month before she
AD> MG> turned out 45 perfect full size brioche in a professional
AD> MG> oven to demonstrate her homemaking skills.

AD> I’ll outbake, and out-do her in anything else too. She’s
AD> not about anything I can’t handle.

But would the press cover you doing it without the slightest
skepticism as though you had actually done it?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * History is what happened not what you think about it.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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_951007 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (544)
To: Tim Boothby 4 Oct 95 21:12:10
Subject: Bible

TB> > In spite of “Official Reports”, Koresh’s followers did not
TB> > commit mass suicide. By saying they did, it exonerates all
TB> > Government involvement of the mass murder of innocent
TB> > people.

TB> The problem is that I’ve seen the film. When you have two
TB> eyes, you don’t need reports, official or otherwise. When
TB> you see the fires started at the same time, at different
TB> locations you don’t need people to tell you what you see. I
TB> went home for a visit not too long ago, I grew up not too
TB> far from the sight and decided to take a peek. What a
TB> goddamn waste.

From the real time CNN coverage I only saw it start in one
place. About twenty minutes after it started I heard them relay
a press release from DC that the Davidians had started the fire.
During the week I heard much of the government evidence such as
two snipers who saw it being started, people were captured on
videotape starting it, not to mention the two agents they had
inside and all the audio and video surveillance equipment they
had inside the building.

I agree, it is surprising with all of this evidence, that
they only had one tank driver who saw something that looked like
a fire being started testify and showed only the IR tape that was
fortuitously left running. It was sort of a waste of the
opportunity.

I was also interested in the arson contractor and how, in
the first two days of his investigation that he expressed
incredulity at how many places appeared to have been places the
fire started and then settled on three as the number.

And the strangest thing is that there was no pattern to the
fires on the IR tape. The first we saw in TV was on the second
floor and the stairs had been collapsed hours earlier. And then,
after the gymnast gets up there to light his fire, he simply
lights it in the room it is in rather than pouring it in the
halls first. The other places are as strange, they were just lit
in the kerosene storage rooms. The lack of effort to block the
exits with fire or something similar is very noteworthy by its
absence.

And then of course we have the credibility of the FBI in the
matter. For two years they were saying that absolutely nothing
flammable was used when in fact at this hearing we find both CS
gas and its solvent were both flammable and the type of gas
grenade used was finally identified as a known incendiary type
(1200 F burn.) This is no surprise to those who have followed
the subject but it must have come as a surprise to those who
still believed the first story, that nothing flammable was used.

It appears clear that if the FBI’s activities did not start
the fire it not of lack of willful carelessness.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The power to regulate is not the power to prohibit.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (547)
To: All 4 Oct 95 18:40:10
Subject: Papal Prescience

4 October 1995

Pope John Paul II arrives in the United States having wisely
scheduled his visit after the Simpson verdict.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A strong back is a terrible thing to waste.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (548)
To: All 4 Oct 95 19:02:10
Subject: religious bigotry

In the following we have a classic example of religious
bigotry that is unacknowledged as bigotry. Were another religion
substituted for christian, such as jewish, and an equally absurd
claim made, it would be soundly denounced as antisemitic.

Yet, as long as it is Chrisitian that is named, the bigots
will assert its truth regardless of the absurdity.

On 10/01/95
from TOM PARDUE
to ANDREW CONNER
on batf explains no ok
in Fido-Civil Liberts

TP> > If the public education system is abandoned that is what
TP> > will happen. However I believe that their is enough Liberal
TP> > Republicans to stop such an action.

TP> There is no longer any such thing as a “liberal
TP> Republican.” The christian coalition which now runs the
TP> party wouldn’t allow it. the closest thing you have to a
TP> liberal is Alren Spector, and he doesn’t have a hope in
TP> hell of being elected president.

®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: Debate – (549)
To: Lester Garrett 4 Oct 95 15:36:10
Subject: Robert Hirschfeld

LG> MG> Thanks, posted back to KP.

LG> You weren’t planning to x-post that to the LAW Echo were
LG> you? {grin}

I guess I should not have thought to do so. I did keep it
around some place.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (550)
To: Bob Klahn 4 Oct 95 21:43:10
Subject: CLINTON’S GUN BAN

BK> SD> I never said anything different. Of course, the 2nd
BK> SD> Amendment never mentioned anything about being just about
BK> SD> sporting and hunting rifles. At the time the Constitution
BK> SD> was written, they were fully expecting the citizenry to
BK> SD> have the same weapons as did the army — so the people

BK> At the time the constitution was written they had not even
BK> considered machine guns, modern gatling guns, modern
BK> gatling cannons, shoulder fired anti-aircraft rockets,
BK> etc. You might say they should be legal, as somebody here
BK> actually did, but I will disagree with that. The founders
BK> were great men, but they didn’t know everything.

For openers, the first militia law required ever man to
outfit himself with a rifle suitable for military use at the
time. For seconds, rapid firing weapons and rockets were known
at the time. For thirds, manually operated gatling guns are
still completely legal.

BK> SD> could defend themselves against a tyrannical government —
BK> SD> as they had just done…

BK> I’m more worried about defending myself from those who are
BK> on the opposite side from the govt.

You had better be prepared to do it. If there should be an
insurrection, the government hasn’t a chance in hell of
controlling it with the military. It will be up to people like
you to do it. That means, arm yourself if you are serious in
your beliefs.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * [email protected]
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (551)
To: Moody Blues 4 Oct 95 21:53:10
Subject: COLIN POWELL

MB> AH> Yea or Nay on Powell for President? If Yea, as Independent
MB> AH> or Republican? *adh*

MB> Based on what I have heard today, I’d vote for Powell as a
MB> Rep or Ind….

What did you hear?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “The government should fear the people.” Thomas Jefferson
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (552)
To: George Noonan 4 Oct 95 21:55:10
Subject: Congress email addres??

GN> FR> Frank

GN> Its on AOL. But I am going to have to lear to DL on this board.

Where on AOL?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A mime is a terrible thing to waste … but wasting is fun.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (553)
To: Michael Pilon 4 Oct 95 22:08:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!

MP> A recent ruling by the Supreme court of Canada has
MP> overturned a law prohibitting cigarette advertising.
MP>
MP> The Canadian Cancer society reently sent 100 under 16
MP> year old, volunteers to ask for cigarettes at stores. In
MP> Ontario ( Most of Canada ?) store are not allowed to sell
MP> cigaretes to anyone under 18. Over 80 % of the underage
MP> volunteers had no problems getting cigarettes.
MP>
MP> Oh it’s ahappy day for the perveyors of the life
MP> shortening weed. No doubt as minors are hooked there will
MP> be pressure to recind or reduce the non smoking laws.

But look at all the money those early deaths save you folks
in medical costs.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Want my gun? Make my day.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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_951008 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (644)
To: Michael Pilon 5 Oct 95 14:43:10
Subject: CP. NEW

MP> MP> I am sure if you looked somewhere in Military regs you
MP> MP> would find that he is expected to serve where the US
MP> MP> military assigns him.

MP> MG> Where and under who are different issues. How about a
MP> MG> paranoid example? While serving with the UN he receives
MP> MG> orders from the Pakistani (the EEO commander of the week)
MP> MG> to start shooting the Canadian contingent? What is he to
MP> MG> do?

MP> Hypothetical and an illegal order.

What is illegal about the order?

If he did he would be
MP> courtmartialled by the US Army.

How can one be courts martialed for obeying orders? After
all, they were not under US command and so the US Army has no
jurisdiction nor does the UCMJ.

As I understand it from
MP> personal experience all direct orders come from Contingent
MP> commanders.

So he is a Paki. What changed?

MP> MG> Follow orders of course, he is under orders from that
MP> MG> commander. What is the penalty for disobedience of a
MP> MG> direct order? Now who does Canada complain to? Certainly
MP> MG> not the US. Either the UN or Pakistan, most likely the
MP> MG> former.

MP> Can you imagine the hew and cry for a really serious
MP> situation. This clown New i is causing more tears to flow
MP> because he doesn’t want to wear a shoulder patch. Imagine
MP> if a looney tune order came about ?

I am not asking about the order. I am asking you who Canada
would complain to when their entire contingent has been wiped
out?

MP> MG> Did you just say it can’t happen? Why not? What could
MP> MG> prevent it?

MP> Ask the good folks at Mai Lai…

UN rules apply. What do you think “being under the command
of” means?

MP> MP> WOuld you negate Korea.

MP> MG> Orders in Korea came directly from the US President.

MP> Field orders came from the field.

Does the term, chain of command, ring a bell with you?

MP> MP> Nato , what about exchanges.

MP> MG> Even in exchanges between our Army and our Air Force, there
MP> MG> is no change of uniform or additional device indicating
MP> MG> membership in the other service.

MP> The US badge is a badge indicating what campaign
MP> designations meant in WW II.

What are you talking about?

MP> MP> I served with US military on assignment to Canada and
MP> MP> they often wore local insignias. For example the 415 Sqn
MP> MP> shoulder patch was worn by Americans. Two Canadians died
MP> MP> this weekend on a US AWACS air craft in Alaska, no doube
MP> MP> they wore sqn patches.

MP> MG> A unit designation is not a national designation. May I
MP> MG> suggest they (you) did not wear anything saying “US Army”
MP> MG> or its equivalent?

MP> Nor do you wear anything indicating you are a soldier of
MP> anything other than your country . We wear the same
MP> uniforms, rank insignia etc..

What do the letters “UN” imply to you?

MP> MP> Spc New is a total asshole…. period.

MP> MG> You don’t know a damned thing about him save what he has
MP> MG> stated are his intentions to his superiors. Are you going
MP> MG> to be in Atlanta next year for the conclusion jumping
MP> MG> event?

MP> Okay a total military asshole. He may in other ways be a
MP> great guy to know and fun to be with. As to Atlanta I am
MP> fed up with most organized sports. Real men play rugby .

Eat your dead too?

®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: Debate – (646)
To: Michael Pilon 5 Oct 95 13:50:10
Subject: CHRISTIAN COALITION

MP> MP> MP> Is medicare a work of the devil. Didn’t Christ say
MP> MP> MP> something about helping the poor ? Gad no wonder I could
MP> MP> MP> never be born again, I have all these silly ideas about
MP> MP> MP> good will to fellow man…

MP> MP> MG> Where is it written there is merit in forcing others to be
MP> MP> MG> charitable?

MP> MP> If it ain’t in the US constitution it ain’t anywhere right
MP> MP> Matt ?

MP> MG> I will admit any acknowledged source on the subject of
MP> MG> charity that you wish to discuss. Which one holds that
MP> MG> forcing others to give is meritorious towards the virtue of
MP> MG> charity?
MP> MG>
MP> MG> If you would like to cite any such work endorsing force as
MP> MG> meritorious I will be happy to hear of it. For the moment
MP> MG> we can even skip the validity of the religion.
MP> MG>
MP> MG> After you take ZERO screens for your examples, perhaps you
MP> MG> can, in your own words, tell me why force equals charity.

MP> Matt the only ZERO here is your interpretation of what I
MP> understand medicare to be.

You appear to be unaware it was designed as a system that
would pay for itself. In the face of impending bankruptcy, there
are three choices, raise taxes, lower benefits or deficit finance
it.

As you may recall there are
MP> other countries in this world and the one I live in ( as
MP> do most civilized Western nations) has a universal medical
MP> insurance plan.

I do find it interesting that about the only thing Canadians
have to fall back on is, “We’re civilized, really we are.” And
as I noted many months ago, the Canadian solution for every US
problem is to do things the Canadian way.

On the third hand, how did Medicare turn into a “universal
medical insurance plan”?

It is supported by the vast majority of the
MP> people. I know as Lester has pointed out in his flawed
MP> logic must those 2 % who favour a US tier system medical
MP> plan be forced to participate. I suppose the question could
MP> be better stated by asking must the 35000000 in the US be
MP> forced to toady to the Insurance companies. Just who is
MP> being forced to do what.

You should come south and become a democrat. You do well in
not saying “the people who want to choose” and jumping right to
saying they are being forced. The people who want to choose are
being forced to choose. And then, without the slightest
hesitation characterize choice as toadying.

MP> I await your screen saver reply.

It is unfortunate that Canada is so uncivilized you are
forced to toady to the computer dealers. It would be much more
civilized for Canada to provide every citizen with an Amiga.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Don’t fight crime, fight criminals.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (647)
To: Michael Pilon 5 Oct 95 14:16:10
Subject: CP. NEW

MP> MP> MP> As a person who once served in a UN peace keeping force
MP> MP> MP> ( Cyprus 1971-1972) I would say Spc New is a total
MP> MP> MP> asshole…..

MP> MP> MG> You need to learn what our constitution is like.

MP> MP> Tell that to Korean vets or even NATO forces. Hmmm what
MP> MP> that about learning about your constitution ?

MP> MG> US troops were not under other than US command in either
MP> MG> case. Perhaps you need to learn what that means?

MP> First I think it is a silly rule to not be under foreign
MP> command.

It comes from the Constitution which you may also think is
silly but it is not something to be taken lightly when that is
the focus of the oath the military (and anyone else working for
or elected to the government) takes.

MP> In fact US troops have been and contiue to be in many
MP> instances.

You might find the time to provide examples some day.

MP> But rules of engagement drawn up in 1776
MP> aside…

They are neither rules of engagement nor do they date from
that year.

UN troops are in fact primarily under the command
MP> of their own people as they tend to operate in sectors
MP> independently. Much like NATO. Perhaps you need to learn
MP> what that means ?

The issue is who is ultimately in charge. I seem to
remember some operation where the Canadian color of UN cannon
fodder called the UN office that was in charge of the operation
and found the “war room” had gone home for the night. I think
that was an excellent example of what it means.

An then there was the example a couple months ago were a few
hundred fierce, battle-hardened, armed-to-the-teeth peace keepers
are taken hostage without a shot being fired.

I have a very good picture of what it means to be under UN
command. I see it on the news regularly.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Deny guns and deny the right to self defense.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (648)
To: Michael Pilon 5 Oct 95 14:33:10
Subject: CP. NEW

MP> MP> MG> Nor can they be required to obey illegal orders which is
MP> MP> MG> the point of this matter. How can someone be ordered to
MP> MP> MG> wear the uniform of an army of which he is not a member?

MP> MP> When will you evern get it ….. Just like checkered
MP> MP> paint, a yard of shore line, a sky hook…there is no such
MP> MP> thing as a UN Army, let alone a UN uniform.

MP> MG> You appear unable to separate the issues here. There is no
MP> MG> stated or suspected connection with any new world order
MP> MG> talk.

MP> Not by you but by others,

Really? Looking back to my checkered childhood, I remember
the anti-UN talk in this country. It has never been liked. At
one point there was a constitutional amendment making its way to
ratification to clarify the constitutional issue on treaties that
was only ended by a Supreme Court decision that confirmed the
substance of that amendment.

MP> MG> This is an issue of whether or not an American (call it a
MP> MG> quirk of our system) has any obligation to participate in
MP> MG> activity whose orders do not originate with the president.
MP> MG> As to the Canadian system and what you may have worn is
MP> MG> clearly something from another legal system.

MP> As you realize not all military orders originate with the
MP> President. It is the assigment that originates with him. If
MP> the president assigns US troops to Nato or a UN duty that
MP> is his order. The rest is purely military day to day
MP> operations.

Assignment in the sense you are using it has not occurred as
yet. And that is the issue whether there is any obligation to
obey orders that do not derive from the constitution. Assignment
fine, but as subsequent orders do not come from the president,
there is no oath to obey those orders.

So what was the wording of your oath?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The average American has one testicle and one breast.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (650)
To: Michael Pilon 5 Oct 95 14:53:10
Subject: MICHAEL NEW – A REAL

MP> MG> And since you were there, what is the wording of the oath
MP> MG> you took when joining the army?

MP> Gad this brings a big grin. Hard to beleive it was 30 years
MP> ago just around this time. I joined to get my way paid
MP> through dental school. Four years later I was in the Ward
MP> Room ( Officer’s Mess) of the Navy in Halifax and
MP> criticising the Royals as a bunch of freeloaders. A NAvy
MP> Officer took me aside and reminded me that I had sworn an
MP> oath to the Royal Family and their heirs.

There is the difference, is it not? Your primary oath was
to people. Thus you were subject, so to speak, to the whims of
those people.

So my oath was
MP> taken with a hand on the Bible and an eye on my bank
MP> account ;).

Loyalties such as yours are a national treasure.

MP> I think the oath was modified in subsequent years
MP> toning the Royal part down. Obviously it wasn’t taken too
MP> seriously 😉

The officer who took you aside reminded you that it was
serious. You should have realized that when you took it.

=====

The US oath is to the Constitution, not to the president but
mentions him and “the officers appointed over me.” The manner of
appointment of officers is covered elsewhere in our Constitution.
An improperly appointed officer would have no authority neither
would an officer not appointed in accordance with the
constitution.

Perhaps you don’t think it should be that way. On the other
hand, I find it difficult to conceive of taking an oath to
tabloid material.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A UN acting against Bosnia can act against the US.Power=free
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (658)
To: All 6 Oct 95 03:30:10
Subject: Email address for NORML

Can anyone post the EMail address for NORML? Much
appreciated.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The thoughtless are never wordless.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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_951009 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (715)
To: All 7 Oct 95 03:13:10
Subject: Burn L. A. now?

JS> Bob, did you read the latest WIRED, or at least see the
JS> cover? Interestingly done. The pix and article basically
JS> boiled down to “if OJ were white, and Nicole black, would
JS> there be any controversy about his guilt?”

Rather more interestingly the “controversy” appears to be a
media hook that does not exist in the population at large save
for a few they dredge up to justify the lead. I will grant I do
not meet a lot of different people very day in person. I do at
least scan about 1000 Fido messages a day. OJ messages are not
that common.

You should always keep in mind, this has been a media event
from the beginning. No, the media did not cause it. A media
personality started it or was at least involved in it. And it
was in LA, media capital of the world. A good fraction of the
people producing shows about it probably knew him.

The people who are the media and the people who watch the
media are synergistic. For example, facts were reported and
there was an initial interest because of OJ. Then the media not
only continues the report but reports the interest. That brings
in more people.

Higher ratings encourage more coverage. So they cover the
araignment and some creative type admits they did not understand
a word of it and calls an attorney. They attorney says he will
be happy to do an interview for a fee and the explanation draws a
different audience in addition to the old audience.

And from there every possible aspect of the entire event is
covered from every possible angle. Even if you are like me and
don’t really give a damn about it there were aspects of it that
did interest me and I did give those a watch.

Most anything can be turned into such an event. Lorena
Bobbit was one differing in the duration and avoiding much
coverage by the “sillyness” of the crime. The traditional
talking heads would not touch it. (Violence is fine but please
don’t touch the sex.)

The OJ difference was a media personality, sports hero,
(good) movie star, commentator, commercial spots. And here was
all of the above in one event with infinite possibilities for
digression upon aspects of it. It is something like the Bible.

A well known if disjointed collection of writings upon which
everyone has an opinion and thus open to every form of
interpretation. You can gather an attentive audience of devout
atheists if you approach it right.

Back to the beginning. Even though everything we have heard
from jurors so far and considering the 3 hour deliberation
indicates there was no way in hell there were race considerations
in the verdict, this is the aspect the media has fixed on for
this week. Most likely by the time you read this there will be
another aspect that is hot as this one will play out for lack of
a followup.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Income tax illegal?Trying to overthrow the government I see.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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_951010 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (851)
To: All 8 Oct 95 00:02:10
Subject: Nation of Islam

DA> * Originally Re: Nation of Islam
DA> ______________________________________________________________________

DA> Did you know:
DA>
DA> This is an organization that hates Jews with a burning
DA> passion.
DA>
DA> This is an organization that thinks Jews are conspiring
DA> against blacks.
DA>
DA> This is an organization that thinks Hitler “had some good
DA> ideas.”
DA>
DA> This is an organization that thinks whites are the genetic
DA> creations of an evil black scientist some 4,000 years ago,
DA> created simply to torment blacks for all eternity.
DA>
DA> This is an organization that teaches that blacks are
DA> decendants of extraterrestrial beings that arrived on Earth
DA> from flying saucers 10,000 years ago.
DA>
DA> This is an organization whose leader says he regularly
DA> travels in UFOs and speaks with his Space Brothers about
DA> evil whites and Jews.
DA>
DA> This is an organization many times larger than the Ku Klux
DA> Klan and the Aryan Nations combined.
DA>
DA> This is an organization that is growing more powerful every
DA> day.
DA>
DA> This is an organization that brainwashes children into
DA> believing racist twaddle.
DA>
DA> This is an organization that the media treats with kid
DA> gloves.
DA>
DA> This is an organization that Johnny Cochran is proud to
DA> associate with.
DA>
DA> These are the truths about the Nation of Islam. Keep these
DA> things in mind when someone tries to tell you what good
DA> work they do.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, Hatemongering McCartyite.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (852)
To: Anna Dobbyn 8 Oct 95 01:11:10
Subject: IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONT 2/2

AD> BK> There is a good possibility that Samuel Weaver would be
AD> BK> telling his story today if his father hadn’t shot him.

AD> Now *THAT* is the most preposterous thing I’ve ever heard
AD> in my whole life. And just what makes you think Randall
AD> shot his own son? Get real, man!

It came from the testimony of a marshal at the hearing. It
is invented out of revenge for Gerry Spence’s surprise summation
argument that one marshal shot the other. It very closely fit
the testimony.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Paralegal is to lawyer as practical nurse is to doctor.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (853)
To: Michael Pilon 8 Oct 95 01:21:10
Subject: UP IN SMOKE !!!!!

MP> LG> What were the results for alcohol?

MP> Hey I grew up in Montreal where I used to go to taverns at
MP> 15 for a beer and some food. Photo ID..hey does this
MP> picture of the Queen on the one dollar bill count ? ;)…Un
MP> autre Molson Georges SVP :).

What strange clothing you wore.

®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: Debate – (854)
To: Loralie Freeman 8 Oct 95 04:27:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!

LF> MG> But look at all the money those early deaths save you
LF> MG> folks in medical costs.

LF> You know, I hate to admit this….but does anyone else
LF> think that this statement makes sense in a perverse sort of
LF> way?!

If there were a serious case for data the tobacco companies
are suppressing this is it. Every few years the media has the
time to tear itself away from such pressing issues as the OJ
trial and report the news. Smokers do die earlier and have lower
life time medical costs than non-smokers.

Any rational government concerned about medical costs would
be encouraging smoking. There is no honest way to cite medical
costs as a reason for objecting to smoking.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Tinkerbelle roasting on an open fire, Peter nipping at her t
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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_951015 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (805)
To: Loralie Freeman 12 Oct 95 00:51:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!

LF> MG> Any rational government concerned about medical costs
LF> MG> would be encouraging smoking. There is no honest way to
LF> MG> cite medical costs as a reason for objecting to smoking.

LF> I know! But it does seem to make sense on a perverse sort
LF> of level. It *might* be time to callously say – sorry, you
LF> smoked all you life and you knew the risks. You can’t have
LF> this new lung, heart, or whatever. We are giving it to
LF> someone who didn’t have as much choice in the matter.

It seems rather you are missing the point. Doing everything
we can right now, it is still less in average lifetime medical
costs for smokers than nonsmokers.

Start with the most common form a death, stroke and heart
disease. Smokers get them younger and have the worst prognosis,
that is, they die the soonest afterwards. Nonsmokers live longer
and therefore have other diseases before their stroke or heart
attack and they live longer after them.

And then there is the “horrible” lung cancer. The smoking
related forms of lung cancer (many of them are not) are among the
most virulent and deadly. The prognosis is on the order of
months, the remission likelihood is near zero. Nonsmokers live
longer and get cancers that take much longer to kill and often
remit after long expensive treatment only to live long enough to
die of another slow killing disease.

But instituting a “you knew the risks” policy would
certainly cause more ill will than good as the fat would not
receive treatment nor would those involved in dangerous
activities (most sports) and the like. And of course it would
instantly terminate all treatment for some 90% of AIDS carriers.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Matt “lord loves a cheerful” Giwer
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (830)
To: Lewis Clark 11 Oct 95 22:48:10
Subject: 1/4 Liar Clinton

LC> GG> Have you *EVER* known of a president in this century who
LC> GG> hasn’t “spewed a lot of lies” to get in office? I haven’t,
LC> GG> especially the Republican ones…

LC> MG> Another person who admits Clinton is no better than any
LC> MG> Republican. The ranks are swelling.

LC> He is a LOT better,

I re-read the statement and it clearly says he is no better
than. Tell GG about it.

which is why he will be re-elected.
LC> Count on it.

If he does it will be quite surprising. It is difficult to
see how anyone can be reelected when he and his party are going
in different directions.

It is even more difficult to see what his strategy will be
when Newt Gingrich has control of the legislative agenda of the
country. It has to be clear to any aware voter he can deliver on
nothing without his party being in control of at least one house
of Congress. So many are retiring or have switched parties in
the Senate that only the House is a possibility.

And considering he is most likely to be up against Dole and
Dole is going to grandstand getting a term limits amendment
before the states just before the election, it is not obvious
what single issue Clinton can raise to get the press coverage.

And then we need to consider the demographics of party
members. The majority of new party registrations are Republican.
The majority of Democrat contributors are nearing retirement.
Add to that that the only educational demographic majority the
Democrats carried in 1992 was the “never completed high school”
And we clearly see there is little hope for the current strategy
of exploiting misunderstanding will succeed in any manner.

But then, perhaps Barnum was correct.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Trust government as far as you can overthrow it.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (831)
To: Lewis Clark 12 Oct 95 00:21:10
Subject: CLINTON’S GUN BAN

LC> BK> At the time the constitution was written they had not
LC> BK> even considered machine guns, modern gatling guns, modern
LC> BK> gatling cannons, shoulder fired anti-aircraft rockets,
LC> BK> etc. You might say they should be legal, as somebody
LC> BK> here actually did, but I will disagree with that. The
LC> BK> founders were great men, but they didn’t know
LC> BK> everything.

LC> MG> For openers, the first militia law required ever man to
LC> MG> outfit himself with a rifle suitable for military use at
LC> MG> the time. For seconds, rapid firing weapons and rockets
LC> MG> were known

LC> That is true of the first militia laws. However, if the
LC> government can require that militia members supply their
LC> own guns, the government can also NOT require militia
LC> members to have their own guns. The National Guard
LC> members are NOT required to provide their own weapons.

You desperation to support your conclusion is not matched by
your means of getting there. If you will read the constitution
for the first time, you will find congress has was delegated the
power to make the militias uniform or, in the word they used,
regular, as in regulate or regulated. The power to regulate is
not the power to prohibit.

And, on the other third claw, the National Guard is part of
the US Army and is not the militia according the US law.

The laws at the time and continuing to this day essentially
unchanged first defined militia membership under the regulation
power granted to Congress. Then, after membership was
established, it regulated the weapons required. The tradition of
the men supplying their own weapons goes back, in writing, to the
Magna Carta. The change in the tradition is rather recent.

LC> MG> at the time. For thirds, manually operated gatling guns are
LC> MG> still completely legal.

LC> BK> SD> could defend themselves against a tyrannical government —
LC> BK> SD> as they had just done…

LC> BK> I’m more worried about defending myself from those who are
LC> BK> on the opposite side from the govt.

LC> MG> You had better be prepared to do it. If there should be an
LC> MG> insurrection, the government hasn’t a chance in hell of
LC> MG> controlling it with the military. It will be up to people
LC> MG> like you to do it. That means, arm yourself if you are
LC> MG> serious in your beliefs.

LC> On the contrary, the US military is perfectly capable of
LC> dealing with a bunch of nuts who go over the edge. Count
LC> on it.

Your ignorance of guerilla warfare is as vast as it in need
of remedial study. Try Liddel-Hart for the definitive word.

In the interim, in your own words, tell me how less than
800,000 army of which barely 80,000 are combat duty are going to
garrison every possible target in the country and do something
useful against a guerilla movement? (Call up the NG if you want
but also tell me how long tax paying NG members can become paid
employees of the government.)

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Internet: a means of getting pornogrphy and bombs to kids
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (832)
To: Lewis Clark 12 Oct 95 00:42:10
Subject: COLIN POWELL

LC> MB> AH> Yea or Nay on Powell for President? If Yea, as
LC> MB> AH> Independent or Republican? *adh*

LC> MB> Based on what I have heard today, I’d vote for Powell as a
LC> MB> Rep or Ind….

LC> MG> What did you hear?

LC> He is pro gun control, pro choice, pro affirmative action.
LC> In other words, he’s a moderate. That’s why his approval
LC> rating is so high.

You are hearing what you want to hear. What I hear is just
enough to sell the book.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (885)
To: Jack Wilder 12 Oct 95 18:21:10
Subject: Bible

JW> CF> CF>> Mary got tired of waiting, and found someone else for
JW> CF> CF>> a nights fling. When she became pregnant, she claimed
JW> CF> CF>> “Immaculate conception”

JW> CF> MG> Married to an idiot dumb enough to believe that
JW> CF> MG> justifies finding another father.

JW> CF> There is a world full of people that believe it.

JW> MG> Amazing, isn’t it?

JW> What is amazing is that you would post such drivel
JW> without reading first hand knowledge.
JW>
JW> The assertion of “immaculate conception” was
JW> brought forth by the Catholic church almost 300 years
JW> A.D. As any M.D. can tell you, virgin birth does not
JW> equal I.C.

An RC theologian has joined us. Quite correct in that of
course. That gives us two absurdities instead of just one to
deal with.

JW> The “spirit of God” I.E. virgin claim was made by
JW> an apparition in the night that was supposed to have
JW> appeared to Joseph. If Mary claimed anything, it would
JW> have been immaterial to a Jew of that day; Would you
JW> believe her even today??
JW>
JW> In Luke there is a tale of visitation, but we have
JW> no indication that it originated with Mary.

It was traditional to claim a larger than life figure had a
god as a father. No difference here.

®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_951018 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (736)
To: Gary Rimar 14 Oct 95 18:09:10
Subject: religious bigotry

GR> > I am showing you trashing Christians as acceptable
GR> > while trashing Jews is not.
GR> >
GR> > Trash them all or none of them.

GR> I vote for none of them. Also, Jews do get trashed. No
GR> one has a monopoly on religious bigotry in this country.
GR>
GR> Gary (Just ask Louis Farrakhan if you don’t believe
GR> me) Rimar

Perhaps we could limit the discussion of who can get away
with trashing to civilized people doing it? (As for what he and
NOI can get away with, it is no secret they have been stockpiling
weapons for over a decade with the express intention of starting
a revolution. Ever seen Reno send in the tanks?)

But I was talking acceptability. For example, it is clearly
permissible without raising an eyebrow to say the religious right
controls the Republican Party despite the complete absence of
evidence of control. With a similar lack of evidence, claim
liberal jews control the media and take notes on the differences
in the response.

It is my experience that even a discussion like this, of
public response, can excite claims of finding antisemitism in the
discussion.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Clinton smoked pot. Is that for or against drugs?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (737)
To: All 14 Oct 95 16:17:10
Subject: oj

On 10/11/95
from TOM GOODMAN
to DENNIS,.JAMES
on oj
in Fido-Law Forum

TG> Another Note: Both Prosecutors Marsha Clark and
TG> Christopher Darden have registered with the William Morris
TG> Agency in Hollywood I think. They are the most famous
TG> theatrical and literary agents in Southern California.
TG>
TG> Chirs has already been filmed in what must be one of
TG> his first engagements. Seems everybody is gonna make money
TG> on the murders!

Everyone is going to make money off of the people with a
morbid fascination with these murders.

What is interesting are OJ’s attempts to make something from
it through the media. We just might be able to calibrate their
“taste” threshold. This is perhaps the first sign of the media
having a threshold of taste.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Cats make rotten observers.” Schroedinger
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (738)
To: James Littlehammer 14 Oct 95 18:00:10
Subject: 1st religion

JL> LG> ??? I haven’t the foggiest idea what you have in mind.

JL> MG> Federalist Paper. This “wall of separation” comes from a
JL> MG> letter by Jefferson who was out of the country when the
JL> MG> Constitution was being drafted.

JL> JL> True that’s where the actual phrase came from, but there
JL> JL> is no doubt that he nonetheless exerted a lot of
JL> JL> influence. As for the Federalist Papers, I’ll do a search
JL> JL> in the next few days and see what I can find.

JL> MG> I’ll be waiting.

JL> Well, a search of the Federalist Papers turned up nothing
JL> relevant, which doesn’t surprise me. {The only remotely
JL> relevant section I found might be in #19, where they
JL> {presumably Madison} discuss religion as a cause of
JL> divisiveness which “…severed the league..” of the
JL> Swiss.}
JL>
JL> However, I did post a copy of the letter from which that
JL> phrase is taken, as well as some comments re: Madison’s
JL> feelings on the issue, in a post to C.T. Day, reproduced
JL> below.
JL>
JL> If you have the time, I highly recommend L.W. Levy, “The
JL> Establishment Clause: Religion and the First Amendment”
JL> for a good discussion on this issue.

If you have the research resources, the place to look is the
debate in the first Congress regarding the wording of the 1st
amendment that would be submitted to the states for ratification.
A place to start is

‘The Origins of the American Constitution, A Documentary History

Edited by Michael Kammen, Penquin Books, 1986; and ‘Creating the
Bill of Rights

JL> >> ****
JL> “_To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others, a Committee of the
JL> Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut_

JL> January 1, 1802

As you can see from the date, the letter can have had no
influence on the 1st amendment.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I have been alive just a little longer than I can remember.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (740)
To: Patrick Corcoran 14 Oct 95 18:22:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!

PC> MG> So why should there be any penalty for any victimless
PC> MG> crime? As long as it is not treated like alcohol (another
PC> MG> such crime) there is hardly a basis for treating tobacco
PC> MG> like this.
PC> MG>
PC> MG> Why not have the tobacco police do something serious, like
PC> MG> give warnings to the drug dealers on the street outside of
PC> MG> those evil tobacco sellers? I am truly impressed with the
PC> MG> priorities.

PC> Is selling tobacco to minors really a victimless crime? By
PC> far most smokers got hooked while minors.

Excuse me. Can you point to any evidence showing any
difference between age of first use of tobacco, alcohol and
marijuana?

PC> Over 400,000 people die each year from tobacco-related
PC> causes.

And about 3.2 million people die every year in this country.
[population / average life expectancy] That means 12% of deaths
IN THE WORST CASE have some relationship a disease found more
common in smokers.

To put that further in perspective. A heart attack is
related to smoking. A non-smoker dies of a heart attack, he has
died of smoking related cause. So if we go by averages again
with 30% of the people in this country being smokers, only
120,000 (3.6% of all deaths) smokers die of smoking related
causes.

That is the worst case that can be attributed to smoking
caused deaths and even that does not establish that smoking was
the cause.

And a more truthful statement is not deaths but dying some
years earlier because of smoking, making the simple observation
everyone is going to die.

Further studies have shown that after at most 10 years of
not smoking that for morbidity and mortality purposes it is as
though they have never smoked. That gives a person starting
under 18 some 40 years to quit and still have a non-smoker’s life
expectancy.

To look at it from a more perverse point of view. Smoking
is one of the safest ways to avoid contracting altzheimer’s or
parkinson’s or any number of other debilitating diseases of
extreme age. You are less likely to live long enough to contract
them.

PC> I say leave the adults alone, and get government out of
PC> their business as much as possible. I usually oppose
PC> increases in tobacco taxes, and I am similarly opposed to
PC> continued price supports to grow tobacco. However, there
PC> are laws on the books against selling tobacco to minors.
PC> Those laws should be enforced, and flagrant violators of
PC> those laws should have their licences to sell tobacco
PC> revoked.

The tobacco police should be taking away the licenses of
drug dealers. It is a sign of a very, very misplaced priority in
our society to be making an issue of something so trivial.

®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: Debate – (742)
To: All 15 Oct 95 03:12:10
Subject: Changing attitudes

Changing attitudes
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <10/13>

It is often instructive to have clear examples of how
attitudes change over time particularly in political matters. We
do not always realize how greatly things can change. We then
have the idea that the present viewpoint is the one that always
existed and is somehow the one and only correct attitude.
A clear example exists how the federal government was
viewed prior to the war between the states. In the first half of
the 19th century world sentiment against slavery. The nations
were outlawing it. The United States was one of the last
holdouts.
To present a better face to the world, slave trading was
made illegal in the District of Columbia. That does not sound
like much on the face of it. On the presumption that it was not
an empty gesture, lets examine what it indicated.
In international terms it clearly set the federal government
as different from the state governments. The federal government
exercised its police powers in the only place it could, the
District of Columbia as a demonstration of the federal position on
slavery. It is not conceivable today, that the District of
Columbia could be emblematic of the federal government but back
then it was good internationally.
And note that the District was the only place it could
exercise such power. Who today but those considered “kooks”
would hold that the police powers of the federal government are
limited to the District? The equivalent today would be, for
example, that the federal laws against drugs applied only to the
District.
One step further, the laws were against the slave trade
only. They did not prohibit the ownership of slaves. They did
not infringe property rights.
Using the drug example, this would be like banning the sale
of drugs but not having any laws against manufacture, possession
or use of drugs. Property rights gave a good imitation of being
inviolate in those days.
And so did state’s rights. Remembering the Dred Scott
decision, if it was legal to own slaves in one state that
ownership had to be honored in other states. Try visiting from
Alaska with your personal stash of marijuana and pleading that
possession is legal in Alaska in the courts of another state.
If you are completely against drugs and feel federal laws
are proper, substitute guns or whatever you feel is improperly
subject to federal laws. For the most part, the source of the
permission for these federal laws is the ubiquitous interstate
commerce clause. It has been invoked so many times in so many
ways for so many years that it is difficult to imagine the
country as a whole ever having a different viewpoint.
And look at it from another direction. Lincoln was clearly
about as anti-slavery as one could be without being a John Brown.
So was most of the North. But there was no political call to
over-ride the rights of states even in so noble a cause as the
abolition of slavery.
Secession had been under way for about five months before an
exchange of gunfire actually started the war. There was no
political call for war to prevent secession prior to the
shooting starting. The issue of secession was still up in the
air in those days, still is actually, yet it is now considered
settled when it was not as the issue was the shooting not the
secession.
Lets take it one step further in those days regarding guns.
Would they have thought military weapons should be banned?
People owning the military weapons of the time were those first
called up to fight that war. The idea that a man could not
respond for lack of a weapon would be nearly unthinkable.
And in that regard, a man without a gun could take money
from another and show up in his place. That is unthinkable
today, nothing to raise an eyebrow in those times. A body is a
body when it came to the interchangeable battlefield combatants.
It does not matter in fact, only in principle and we care
more about principle than practicality. In fact, in the militia
sense, it is certainly better to have a paid 20 year old in the
field than an out of shape and rich 44 year old.
But since I have raised comparative principles, their
response to being forced to fight in a war they did not choose to
fight, the draft, led to the worst riot in the history of this
country. They too were interested in principles but not the
principles of today.
Viewpoints and principles do change and not necessarily for
the better or worse, simply they are different in different
times. The perennial problem for the wise is to separate the
truly good from the merely different.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

To save long distance calls. One time permission to
reproduce this article is granted upon the following conditions.
All BBS reproduction is included and only an email notification
is requested. If you Xpost everything, one notification will do.
1) You send a proof copy if printed media to the address
below.
2) The byline and address below is included.
3) Your editorial effort is limited to reasonable spelling
and grammar corrections.
4) There is no significant profit expected to be derived
directly from its reproduction, e.g. newsletters priced to
recover costs, non profit activities, the usual collection of
judgement proof people.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Diogenes was disappointed in Little Rock.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (743)
To: Michael Pilon 14 Oct 95 21:16:10
Subject: IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONT

On 10/06/95
from MICHAEL PILON
to ANNA DOBBYN
on IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONT
in Fido-Debate

MP> AD> Have you interviewed Branch Davidians ? Where do you get
MP> AD> your info ? Is it

MP> AD> I certainly have! I was, in fact, present at part of the
MP> AD> trial. I also have documentation.

MP> What do you mean by documentation ? Do you see it as part
MP> of the BIG CONSPIRACY or just a total fuck up by ill
MP> trained people?

Why would you hold those to be the only possibilities? They
were not in any sense of the word, ill-trained. There is plenty
of evidence in support of several criminal conspiracies as part
of Waco operations but not of any that go beyond it. This
evidence comes direct from hearing testimony.

MP> AD> Ah, yes…. I keep forgetting that “patriot” is now a
MP> AD> dirty word, and that it’s the political equivalence of
MP> AD> being a criminal… It’s hard to get used to these new
MP> AD> definitions. (The term ‘New Speak’ comes to mind…)

MP> If I were an AMerican and someone said I was not a
MP> *Patriot* ™ because I didn’t beleive in the conspiracy
MP> hokum I would be insulted. I hate to equate it to the more
MP> fanatical of the communists but they cornered the market on
MP> jingoism. Does the term Comrade ring a bell, those who were
MP> not zealots were of course outside the chosen realm of the
MP> commrades and hence traitors. Hmmm shurely not a parallel
MP> somewhere.

Would you be the first to point out just who besides Linda
Thompson is talking conspiracy?

MP> AD> You’ve *BEEN* told–over, and over and over again. You do
MP> AD> not *LISTEN*. I’m not telling you anything you have not
MP> AD> already heard before. The problem here is not that you
MP> AD> haven’t been told, but that you just don’t listen. Period.

MP> No Anna you have not told me anything that is not short of
MP> paranoia and an echo of what the *PATRIOT* propagandists
MP> are feeding you. SOme of the posts on these topics from oyu
MP> and others in this echo are almost verbatim from what I
MP> hear on short wave. Did you say something about New Speak ?
MP> I thought you did !

What shortwave do you listen to and why?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Only the FBI could lose a front door.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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_951026 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (489)
To: All 18 Oct 95 05:27:10
Subject: homepage

10/15/95

Anyone with nothing better to do with their copious free
time might want to waste some of it at

http://users.aol.com/mgiwer/

Nothing you haven’t seen here as yet but then I am doing by
own debugging, which is like being one’s own lawyer.

In any event, the light dawned yesterday that AOL would
permit web pages and this was a chance to test my crash course
(self taught) in HTML guruism. I expect to be on a more
responsive site in a few weeks but here is the place to start.

If you are not into browsing, the files are available FTP
but the filenames are not descriptive. Grab index.html first and
not that the file you might want is inside the quotes in

<a href=”filename”>descriptive title</a>

and the description follows the “>.

———————– or <HR>

10/18/95

Things move quickly in cyberspace. There are now about 1.9M
of material available through this homepage reference.

It is easiest to go through the homepage at the above
address to get everything. You will find my gun.faq, basic
documents relating to the US, my turgid writings, and “something
completely different” at the moment.

=====

GUN.FAQ

Those who have been interested in my GUN.FAQ it is available

ftp://users.aol.com/mgiwer5/gunfaq.zip

You can web access it in pieces via the main menu at

http://users.aol.com/mgiwer

or you can go direct to

http://users.aol.com/mgiwer5/q0.htm

=====

Basic documents direct but piecemeal (no zip file as yet)

ftp://users.aol.com/mgiwer5/index.htm

for a listing of the files.

//////////

Hint:

HTtp and Ftp
~~ ~

tp is transfer protocol, HT is HyperText and F is File. If
~ ~

it is set up as a hypertext web page, you can not go wrong
pulling by ftp. Any file with an .EXT of .htm or .html is almost
certainly in browser readable format.

®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: Debate – (734)
To: Paul Levin 21 Oct 95 03:35:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!

PL> Actually, I have NEVER seen smoking related as a cause of
PL> death on a death certificate.

Agreed but when that point was made some activist doctors
started listing it.

PL> MG> Further studies have shown that after at most 10 years
PL> MG> of not smoking that for morbidity and mortality purposes it
PL> MG> is as though they have never smoked. That gives a person
PL> MG> starting under 18 some 40 years to quit and still have a
PL> MG> non-smoker’s life expectancy.

PL> Which Journal?

Good question. It came out so long ago I have no idea. Ask
your doctor next time. I doubt he can name the journal but
certainly can confirm it is the consensus of opinion among
doctors.

PL> MG> To look at it from a more perverse point of view.
PL> MG> Smoking is one of the safest ways to avoid contracting
PL> MG> altzheimer’s or parkinson’s or any number of other
PL> MG> debilitating diseases of extreme age. You are less likely
PL> MG> to live long enough to contract them.

PL> That is sick! I love it! May I use it?

Of course.

PL> If you want real fun, go outside of a local hospital and
PL> count the number of people in scrubs who are smoking. I
PL> may be one of them.

I certainly wouldn’t want someone in need of a smoke in the
OR.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes even vultures lose patience and kill something.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (735)
To: Paul Smith 21 Oct 95 03:39:10
Subject: UP IN SMOKE !!!!!

PS> MG> I am only pointing out that you have to send armed
PS> MG> people to confiscate guns. That they are armed is an
PS> MG> invitation to a confrontation. The collectors will start
PS> MG> dying.

PS> I suppose you advocate disarming the collectors? LESS
PS> people will die that way?

I am warning against attempting to collect them in the first
place. Even DC did not seriously consider following through on
its threat to send the police to collect the registered guns.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * EYE 4 NEWT
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (750)
To: Lewis Clark 19 Oct 95 22:13:10
Subject: 1/4 Liar Clinton

LC> MG> If he does it will be quite surprising. It is difficult to
LC> MG> see how anyone can be reelected when he and his party are
LC> MG> going in different directions.

LC> It’s all relative. The liberal wing of the Democratic
LC> Party is hurting. My be is that they will come around and
LC> support Clinton simply because the alternative is
LC> unacceptable.

They ran away from him in 1994 and look what happened. Of
course, there are those who always say things could be worse.

LC> MG> It is even more difficult to see what his strategy will be
LC> MG> when Newt Gingrich has control of the legislative agenda of
LC> MG> the country. It has to be clear to any aware voter he can
LC> MG> deliver on nothing without his party being in control of at
LC> MG> least one house of Congress. So many are retiring or have
LC> MG> switched parties in the Senate that only the House is a
LC> MG> possibility.

LC> That depends on what he wants to “deliver.” The
LC> Republicans seem to have gone along with him on welfare
LC> reform, although the radical right tried to come down too
LC> heavy on the children of teenaged mothers.

What “gone along with”? He never proposed a thing. He
didn’t do anything and is against everything the Republicans are
trying to do.

LC> MG> And considering he is most likely to be up against Dole and
LC> MG> Dole is going to grandstand getting a term limits amendment
LC> MG> before the states just before the election, it is not
LC> MG> obvious what single issue Clinton can raise to get the
LC> MG> press coverage.

LC> Dole supports term limits? Hahahahaha! You DO realize the
LC> irony there, right?

He could have let the amendment die but he changed his vote
so he could bring it up for a vote again in September 1996, just
before the election. And what would he care? He has one more
term at best. In the worst case he would have two more possible
terms after the amendment is ratified. That would put him close
to 90 before being affected.

LC> MG> And then we need to consider the demographics of party
LC> MG> members. The majority of new party registrations are
LC> MG> Republican. The majority of Democrat contributors are
LC> MG> nearing retirement. Add to that that the only educational
LC> MG> demographic majority the Democrats carried in 1992 was the
LC> MG> “never completed high school” And we clearly see there is
LC> MG> little hope for the current strategy of exploiting
LC> MG> misunderstanding will succeed in any manner.

LC> That is true, which explains why the Republicans cannot
LC> hope to capture the White House or retain control of
LC> Congress.

If your point is that high school dropouts will swell the
party ranks then I would have to ask you how that will happen.
Beyond that, I do not see how an increasing number of Republicans
and decreasing the income of Dem contributors will have the
effect you conclude.

LC> MG> But then, perhaps Barnum was correct.

LC> I certainly thought so after November of 1994.

Perhaps true. But the people are getting much of what they
voted for. The complaints from the Perotistas is that they are
not getting enough of it. They were the swing vote last time.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * November 14, 1995, Train-wreck, USA.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (751)
To: Bob Klahn 19 Oct 95 22:28:10
Subject: 2ND AMENDMENT/GUN CTR 01

BK> BK>> LG> have the same weapons as did the army. . ..” Granting
BK> BK>> LG> that premise means that as the army acquired the arms you
BK> BK>> LG> mention, the citizen would also be able to acquire them.

BK> BK>> Which would imply the right to aquire nuclear weapons.

BK> MG> And? Does the danger of a lion imply the power to
BK> MG> prohibit the ownership of housecats? Or does it is imply a
BK> MG> legitimate power to require a level of security and public
BK> MG> safety?

BK> Seems to me you are dodging my point. Do you insist on the
BK> absolute right to keep and bear any arm that exists, of
BK> are we discussing exactly what the limits are.

BK> If you argue there is an absolute right to own any cat,
BK> then that implies the right to own a lion. I will argue
BK> for restrictions on ownership of lions. If you agree that
BK> there is no absolute right to keep a lion, I will then
BK> discuss exactly where the line is.

You penchant for jumping to absolutes when it suits you is
not a matter exemplary of honesty.

I hold there is an absolute right to do, own, say anything
as long as it is not a direct harm to others. I also hold that
prudence dictates appropriate safety measures for some things.
That the state enforces prudence in the form of licensing is a
matter of applying group wisdom to particular issues.

Clearly there are no laws against owning lions else zoos and
circuses would be in violation of those laws. There are
requirements for a permit to own them. These are first a matter
of public safety and second proper treatment of the animals.
Similarly, in Florida, there is a law requiring every cat to have
some vaccination and it is illegal to sell or even give away a
cat without that shot. You will also find a similar law
regarding the ownership of dogs and rabies shots.

Nuclear weapons would require commensurate precautions for
ownership. As you know, there is no law against owning them.
(Be the first to cite the law.) If you wish to manufacture your
own, you will find even the basics require significant licensing
requirements. When you start getting serious, you will find no
one will sell you what you need.

But, there is no law against you owning a nuclear weapon.

BK> BK>> The courts have long held the second amendment applies to
BK> BK>> a well regulated militia.

BK> MG> You are not the first to make this claim and I have
BK> MG> summaries of every SC case and most of the district and
BK> MG> circuit cases of interest. Would you provide the cases
BK> MG> that support your claim as I can not find any. BTW:
BK> MG> Quote FROM the case when you cite it.

BK> Show me one case where the courts have held the government
BK> can not place any restrictions on gun ownership at all? If
BK> there were such a case every gun law would have been
BK> overturned.

You are not the first to make the claim that

BK> BK>> The courts have long held the second amendment applies to
BK> BK>> a well regulated militia.

I also invited you to be the first to demonstrate that the
claim is correct.

It appears you have declined the honor.

BK> I would ask you to send me copies of the cases, but I
BK> notice you qualified it with the words, “of interest”.
BK> Does that mean every case related to gun control, or,
BK> merely of interest to you.

Available either ftp or http from

users.aol.com/mgiwer5/sc3.htm

main reference

http://users.aol.com/mgiwer

Get them if you are interested.

BK> No, I do not have the cases. I merely quote from lawyers I
BK> have heard speak on the subject. If you are a lawyer,
BK> working in the field, please let me know. If not, have you
BK> actually read the cases? If so, in which ones did the
BK> courts strike down the gun control laws?

And then it would behoove you to ask those attorneys for
those cases. Were you paying for a professional opinion or
merely BSing with them? I know several attorneys, none of which
follows these cases and, were I to ask for a professional
opinion, they would start charging by the hour while doing the
research.

BK> BK>> arms. IOW, you have the right to own your own Nuke.

BK> MG> There is NO LAW against it. Please cite and quote the
BK> MG> law that does if you wish to claim otherwise.

BK> You look it up.

Impossible to do as the law does not exist.

Or, try to obtain one. You know quite well
BK> the government will stop you, the courts will allow it,
BK> and you will go to prison if you try to get your own
BK> stockpile of nukes. Demanding that I provide a specific
BK> provision is a meaningless attempt to divert the arguement
BK> from the facts.
**
Continued in the next message…
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (752)
To: Jack Wilder 19 Oct 95 23:19:10
Subject: Bible

JW> MG> It was traditional to claim a larger than life figure had a
JW> MG> god as a father. No difference here.

JW> A friend of mine calls it Hercules revisited!(;->*

Along with Alexander the Great, the founders of Rome, Mithra
(the cult that had most of the Pauline ideas he wrote of), and of
course the Roman Emperors.

®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: Debate – (753)
To: Michael Pilon 19 Oct 95 23:31:10
Subject: CHINA

MP> MP> A US senator is on record as calling Canada’s vast water
MP> MP> supplies a “Continental Resource”. Don’t think it won’t

MP> MG> If you folks had ever taken your military seriously you
MP> MG> wouldn’t be so ripe for picking.

MP> Matt you make the strangest statements. Imagine a
MP> fanatically armed country on your borders ? I am sure the
MP> average American sleeps better knowing they don’t have to
MP> keep a million troops up north. Gad look at the
MP> preoccupation with Cuba.

Do you really think Canada would warrant that much
excitement? After all, Cubans are fighters.

MP> MG> After all their officers don’t even take their oaths
MP> MG> seriously.

MP> Matt I owe you a Rat’s ass of explanation but since these
MP> posts are often read by many… WHen I was in undergrad in
MP> Montreal ( a city in Central Canada)

Been there. Ruby Foo’s was a great pleasure and the
restaurant through “Richshaw Alley” was a delight to the senses.
A lovely city. Obviously French rather than Canadian.

I found out that the
MP> Army would pay my dental education. So the day I applied to
MP> McGill ( a University in Montreal) I applied to the Army.

A scot frog.

I
MP> was sworn in in October. I had received a medical exam, an
MP> interview and wrote a test. That was my only military
MP> contact. I did not receive a Uniform until I went to basic
MP> training the following summer. So my swearing in and
MP> filling in of 24 forms in 10 copies was a very
MP> non-emotional event in my life. BUT.. I served for 23 year
MP> after that and at no time disgraced myself or my Corps.

I didn’t claim you disgraced anything. I simply pointed out
what you admitted then and now, you did not pay attention to your
oath. It was just another job to you. Peace time warrior, so to
speak. And my point is that Canada is very well known for how it
short changes its military.

The next time I come across my old address book I will look
up the names of some of the admirals who talked to me about it.
It was no secret. We would do everything we could for your Navy
given the shitty way your treated it.

MP> For a Military wannabee such as yourself

A military “as close as they would let me.”

it might come
MP> as a bit of a surprise to know that the fanatical, flag
MP> clutching trooper is usually not well thought of. I have
MP> this from infantry officers in several countries including
MP> the US.

Fighters are what are needed, of course. I have no idea
what you mean by flag clutching in this context.

MP> Now back into the cammies and watch the horizon for
MP> commie Cubans !!

We finally did finally stop them from supplying Nicaragua
and thence El Salvador without pissing off the SU and violating
the missile crisis agreements. Of course if it had been the
responsibility of Canada to keep the SU out of Latin America they
would have it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If OJ had destroyed federal property while killing …
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (754)
To: Michael Pilon 19 Oct 95 23:53:10
Subject: CHRISTIAN COALITION

MP> MG> So? Every time the government gets involved there are such
MP> MG> problems. There is no perfect system. As such no
MP> MG> government can find one either. Every intervention in
MP> MG> favor of one is a harm to another. Optimization of benefit
MP> MG> is maximization of the harm to the remaining.

MP> It is an attempt to provide optimum care to all.

Goals are worthy and noble. I am talking about what can be
accomplished.

A private
MP> plan would provide first class care to a few.

Strangely our thousands of private plans do not work that
way.

A great idea
MP> for those without a social conscience.

Those who can excuse theft from some for the benefit of
other have no conscience.

MP> MG> A government run system would give you an Amiga, as the
MP> MG> Brit system gave them another outdated piece of shit when
MP> MG> the BBC was running its computer course. One size fits all
MP> MG> when the government it running the show.

MP> In an intersting update Canada became independent in 1867
MP> and is no longer a part of Brit politics. In other new
MP> today in Guam ( where dat ???)

But of course your medical system benefits and harms
everyone exactly to the same extent. It is a government system.
It can not preferentially help or harm anyone.

®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: Debate – (758)
To: Diane Coghill 20 Oct 95 22:07:10
Subject: 1/4 Liar Clinton

DC> LC> MG> And then we need to consider the demographics of party
DC> LC> MG> members. The majority of new party registrations are
DC> LC> MG> Republican. The majority of Democrat contributors are
DC> LC> MG> nearing retirement. Add to that that the only educational
DC> LC> MG> demographic majority the Democrats carried in 1992 was the
DC> LC> MG> “never completed high school” And we clearly see there is
DC> LC> MG> little hope for the current strategy of exploiting
DC> LC> MG> misunderstanding will succeed

DC> Can you quote a source for this information, or did you
DC> just make it up to sound good?

Voted for the Voted for the
Education Stupid Democrats Republicans
___—— —————- ————–
no high school diploma 61% 39%
high school graduates 47% 53%
some college 41% 59%
college graduates 45% 55%

Source: USA Today, Nov 9th, 1992

You can see why the current Dem plan to exploit the
misunderstandings people have about the Rep reform program
appears to be succeeding. It appeals to the undereducated.

=====

I don’t have one for the contributors but it was in the news
in the last month or two. You local paper should be able to help
you find find it.

Nor for the party registration but this is has been going on
for over ten years. You certainly should have come across it
before.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Joseph Nagarya, pet rock of the Law echo.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (759)
To: Bob Klahn 20 Oct 95 23:42:10
Subject: 2ND AMENDMT/GUN CTRL 01

BK> BK>> BTW, if the constitution does not grant rights, I wonder
BK> BK>> where they do come from.

BK> MG> The Origin of Human Rights
BK> MG>
BK> MG> We hold that our rights are not granted by our
BK> MG> government or by any agency. The US concept of government
BK> MG> holds the people are

BK> Well, this is a first. I have actually read one of your
BK> polemics in it’s entirety. Of course, the only reason I
BK> did was, you addressed it to me. That and it was a reply
BK> to my question.
BK>
BK> Actually the question was more an inducement to anyone to
BK> offer an opinion on the subject. I guess it worked.

BK> Thank you for an interesting message. One of the few I
BK> have ever said that to you about. Or, is this the first?
BK> Anyway, it does have one quality to recommend it strongly.
BK> It agrees with my position.

Now you see what you have been missing.

BK> I have expressed the belief that the true purpose of
BK> religion is to establish and maintain social order.

Religion is for those not bright enough or old enough to
figure it out for themselves.

Myth and Religion and The Bell Curve
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <2/4>

The school prayer issue is one that is not taken as more
than a passing matter of partisan political debate. The issue
does go much deeper. As recommended by the authors of The Bell
Curve society needs simple laws that everyone can grasp.
Religion as myth is one of those simple things that are needed to
deal with all levels of intellectual ability.
The structure of myth is what we all share as part of our
nature as humans. If we could speak in myth we could probably
speak with our nearest biological neighbors. Myth is the grand
scheme by which we incorporate the chaos of reality into personal
perception and organization. Religion is a quasi-intellectual
codification of myth. Although religion institutes rules for
specific myths it still relies totally upon the schematic of
myth.
Myth is what is it necessary for people to learn in terms of
the society in which they live. Consider that every hero [us,
you and me] must be removed from their comfortable lives. That
means us heroes must (and will) be faced with the unexpected, the
unpredictable, the unexplainable, i.e. chaos, in our lives.
Myth has it that the hero will struggle to come to grips
with this new reality. We know we must deal with the death of a
loved one or anything else that comes along and we must continue
to live despite it.
Myth has it that after this struggle with chaos we will be
transformed into a new person who never again faces a struggle
with a recurrence of this same mythic evil which is chaos. And
once we have first dealt with chaos we are expected to become
stronger and deal with the same again. And if we do not deal
with it, if we do not triumph we feel we have failed. And the
failed hero tries again.
And once the hero has triumphed chaos never strikes him
again in the same manner. It comes at him with completely new
challenges that are rarely as great as the first. This not only
explains the failure of movie sequels it also addresses there
being a defining point in everyone’s life where this metaphor
with chaos permits one to consider everything after less of a
struggle, less of a challenge, less of an intrusion upon the
perception we deal with daily.
These are the simplest points of myth. Myth is the
framework within which we structure the chaotic nature of
reality. Intellectually the structure of myth is what
religion specializes in doing. Any myth, as long as it is good,
is not sufficient, rather it has to be a particular form of the
myth.
But the value of the myth it that it communicates with all
levels of intelligence. Even the simplest mind, the lowest on
the Bell Curve can understand right from wrong in terms of myth.
There are pathologic personalities that can not but they are
distinct from the simple minded although at times they overlap.
Which brings us around to religion in school. The authors
of The Bell Curve point out the necessity of teaching everyone
the basics of justice and law in terms they can understand. The
method must be simple so they can understand it. It can not be
“to hard” for them. It can not be the message “we have to send
your DNA to the lab to convict you.” It has to be a message of,
“if you harm others you are punished.”
Myth is the ordering structure we use to deal with the chaos
of reality. It even includes the hero meeting a wise man or a
god or some such which tells us that asking advice and following
it is a good thing to do. Myth even has what the hero does in
old age, he retreats from power and becomes the wise man to be
consulted.
That myth is the structure of the mind is also the reason we
have such a problem with science. Science is an intellectual
exercise that uses tools of reason that are not myth. But as is
science, so is law and again The Bell Curve points out that
teaching law is a much a failure as teaching science to make
people think scientifically or to follow the letter of the law.
Myth must be taught. The myth makers of our society
generally appear to understand their responsibility. Evil never
triumphs save to never triumph again in a sequel. The forms of
legend are not used to implant that which is bad into the mind of
the movie viewer. We have dystopic heroes but they are heroes.
And the interesting part is that if the “Blofeld” in the book
kills the “James Bond” the book does not sell. Why?
Evil, the bad guy, is chaos and the triumph of chaos is a
failure of the hero and therefore a personal failure of the myth.
We can not identify with the success of chaos or failure of the
hero. That me can not identify begs the question of why and how
we identify. That identification is from myth and myth being the
structure with which we deal with reality. We must be taught to
**
Continued in the next message…
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (760)
To: Bob Klahn 21 Oct 95 00:07:10
Subject: CLINTON’S GUN BAN

BK> MG> I direct your attention to Liddel-Hart for the
BK> MG> standard text on insurrection. It only requires 3% active
BK> MG> and 12% passive support to win. LESS than that won in
BK> MG> Vietnam and Afghanistan.

BK> Please list all the cases you know of in which a guerrilla
BK> army ever defeated the national government without outside
BK> assistance.

Please list all of the reasons why you believe there would
not be foreign assistance to rebels in the US.

Note France during the Colonial Revolution and the Civil
War. Note the government can’t keep hundreds of tons of drugs a
year out of the country. Note a man was charged with violating
the export laws for building functional AA rockets in his
basement and shipping them to Iran — meaning, how much outside
help do you think is needed?

BK> 3% active support, 7.5million people. 12% passive support,
BK> about 30 million people. Total, 37.5 million people
BK> dissaffected enough to join in an armed rebellion against
BK> a democratic government, where they still have the vote.
BK> Even the Michigan Militia spokespeople only claim a
BK> 100,000 or so. That’s reassuring to those of us who find
BK> them to be suspect of serious whacko tendencies.

To be consistent with your method of calculation, you would
count the entire family of militiamen (as you have started with
the entire US.)

That puts the number for the MM closer to 420,000 (at 2.2
children per family + spouse.)

But that isn’t quite the point. If they are the threat you
consider them to be, there were zero of them three years ago. It
is difficult to estimate the growth rate with only two data
points. And of course the named causes for their coming into
existence are Ruby Ridge and Waco. What happens with the next
incident? and the next?

BK> That also assumes the majority don’t care enough to resist
BK> the rebellion. A very poor assumption indeed.

People like you how dislike guns have already disarmed
yourselves and would disarm everyone else. What are you folks
going to fight with? Harsh language? And that is a lesson for
you. The US explained to Diem how to win, by arming the
villages. He refused and kept them disarmed. Just like you are
promoting.

BK> MG> In both cases the remaining 85% sat it out or were victims
BK> MG> as they were disarmed.

BK> Which is one reason I favor a Swiss style military, with
BK> every able bodied citizen,( I include women), and even the
BK> less able bodied, trained and ready to fight.

Lacking the formal training we have the same sort of
military, it is called the militia.

BK> MG> If you are truly concerned about such matters it
BK> MG> behooves you to learn about it and be armed.

BK> You’ve just reassured me in my complacency.

You shouldn’t be.

®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: Debate – (761)
To: Rick Palmer 21 Oct 95 00:37:10
Subject: CLINTON’S GUN BAN 01

RP> MG> * Internet: a means of getting pornogrphy and bombs to kids -!-

RP> The internet is not accessible without a computer.
RP>
RP> Got to have a computer? The Internet is not accessible
RP> without a communications program.
RP>
RP> Got to have a communication program? Protect it with a
RP> password.
RP>
RP> If the above won’t work, you lost your child long before
RP> he/she/it figured out your password!

My son is setting up an internet provider service for his
company.

RP> In short…Your tagline *_must_* be a joke.

– ——-
C-News courtesy of Berkeley Internet Connections
http://www.berkeleyic.com | [email protected]
– ——-
[This satire was originally posted to the nz.general newsgroup in
mid-June. -Chris]

THE INTERNET

A short guide for reporters and journalists

Recently there have been a lot of reports about a generally
insignificant aspect of the Internet, namely the availability of
erotica and other information via computer. The reason for this
is quite obvious – this is one of the hottest news topics
currently available. People get upset, tempers fray, and Trevor
Rogers gets to have his face in the paper again. In short,
stories about the evil Internet are “in”.

This document is intended as a guide for those who would like to
join the ranks of the other reporters and journalists who have
been so successful in the past when reporting about the Internet.
It is intended to save you the hassle of having to reinvent the
wheel when you prepare your report, and to familiarise you with
certain conventions which need to be followed when reporting on
anything to do with the net. You’ll be amazed at how simple it
is.

WHY REPORTING ABOUT THE INTERNET IS USEFUL

The Internet provides fascinating subject material for reporters.
There’s no need to perform any research, you get to cover a “hot
topic”, and the message is so simple that even politicians can
understand it (or at least know how to make political gain from
it).

– – THE MESSAGE

All successful stories on the Internet are based on the
following fact:

The Internet is a piece of high-technology whose single goal
is to get porn and bomb recipes into the hands of children.

Don’t worry about the details. As will shortly be shown, you
may have to adapt this message slightly for your target audience.
However, since your average reader won’t really know the
difference between the Internet, a dialup BBS, and a standalone
computer, you don’t need to go to any special effort to
distinguish between these very different technologies.
Generalise. If something applies to one area, it applies to all
areas, whether that’s physically possible or not. The message is
the same, and provided people read/watch/listen to it, you know
you’ve done your job.

– – PORN

Even while you were still at journalism school, you learned
that sex sells. You also know that sex itself doesn’t sell, but
stories about “comsumers” of sexual material do. This also
provides you with an excuse to show pictures of naked women
(purely to document what’s available, of course) and yet still
hold the moral high ground.

The Internet, like all communications networks, was designed
solely to communicate pornographic images. Of course, the
average user has absolutely no idea how to do this, or how to
perform the complex decoding and image manipulation necessary to
view these images. As a reporter, it is your duty to inform the
public on how this is done. Our moral guardians will be appalled
at how easily you can get access to the information, anyone with
a computer will be busy trying to duplicate your feat, and
everyone else will be too busy staring at the pictures to do
anything else.

Make porn the main theme of your story. If you’re doing a
story on the Usenet, pick something with the name “sex” in it
(even if it’s a sexual abuse counselling service – if it has
“sex” in the name it’s got to be bad), and concentrate
exclusively on that. Ignore the fact that there are over 11,000
other interest areas available on the Usenet. Don’t even waste
your time with them – all people ever talk about there is books,
films, art, hobbies, cars, health, politics, financial issues,
current events, religion, literature, and so on. Who on earth
would read a story about that? Concentrate only on the stuff
which pulls in the readers/viewers. Concentrate on porn.

– – HIGH TECH

Virtually any journalist will know that the majority of the
population are somewhat technophobic. If you want to hold the
readers attention, you can’t go wrong when you use this fact to
your advantage. Let’s take a simple example:

An American, a Japanese, and a New Zealander have a new
technology explained to them. The American says “Great, we can
**
Continued in the next message…
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (762)
To: Michael Pilon 21 Oct 95 00:39:10
Subject: IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONT

MP> MG> Would you be the first to point out just who besides Linda
MP> MG> Thompson is talking conspiracy?

MP> From what I hear on the PATRIOT ™ radio network there
MP> are people from the ]Tripartate comission, CFR ,
MP> Bilderbergs, UN, etc. All a part of a conspiracy which
MP> would be a world first because even Robinson Carusoe and
MP> Friday couldn’t get along, imagine a world wide plot.

Golly. Shortwave? Noting there were no names, I have
another question. What kind of listening group do you think
there is for shortwave in the US? I have never in my entire life
heard anyone bring up in conversation something they heard on
shortwave.

MP> MG> What shortwave do you listen to and why?

MP> I have been a shortwave listener since I was a kid. It was
MP> then that I discovered] an interest in what was over the
MP> horizon. In fact I feel it might not be on interest to
MP> you.

You are the one listening in to the conspiracy nuts. It is
not an American thing. That is probably because we have always
had privately operated rather than government operated radio
stations. We never had to invest in SW equipment to get more
than enough radio material.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * 1996 — We gave ’em hell and we can do it again.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (763)
To: Lewis Clark 21 Oct 95 00:57:10
Subject: IDAHO, WACO, NOW MONяя 01

LC> LC> AD> But more than 80 people, including 17 innocent children,
LC> LC> AD> are not alive. And their church home was burned to the
LC> LC> AD> ground, as I recall. Maybe you got a different account of
LC> LC> AD> what happened?

LC> LC> Their home was burned to the ground by the Davidians. It
LC> LC> shows what can happen when people make a child molesting
LC> LC> gun runner into some kind of religious leader. The people
LC> LC> who followed Jim Jones learned a similar lesson.

LC> MG> You have evidence of these charges or are you simply
LC> MG> repeating the unsubstantiated government story?

LC> The evidence has been aired countless times for everyone to
LC> see. The only people who are still denying it are the
LC> radical right wing fruitcakes who won’t let the facts get
LC> in the way of their pitiful opinions.

I have yet to see any such evidence. Why don’t you identify
it? I have already discussed what the government claims to have.

All the Evidence
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <8/18>

The FBI did itself a great disservice in the Waco hearing
regarding the fire. It only presented a single videotape and one
eyewitness to the start of the fire. This was an opportunity to
close the question once and for all and this is all they
presented from all they have.
I just took the opportunity to go over some discussion of
the early press releases about the fire. It is disappointing
what they did not show to Congress. Perhaps it was the political
aims of the Republicans that prevented them from doing so. It is
disappointing Schumer did not object.
For example, the FBI has videotapes of people actually
starting the fire. It is hard to imagine, what with being before
Congress and the world watching, that they did not show these
videotapes instead of the circling aircraft tape. It certainly
would have been a much better evidence as to who started the
fire.
They also did not mention the two snipers who witnessed
Davidians starting the fire. Here were two eye witness snipers
with telescopic sights who saw the fires being started and
neither were called not testify. Worse yet, they were not even
mentioned. What a waste of a good hearing.
Now they did put on some audio tape that might relate to
starting the fires but they were hours earlier. They failed to
present the audio tapes of the fires as they were being started.
I just don’t understand this at all.
And then of course, their star witness, the two men who they
announced was their agents who got inside and back out after the
fire. Why did they not put these men on the stand? Where are
they now? Where is their testimony as to what happened inside?
Given this golden opportunity what possible reason could the
FBI have had for not presenting such information?

But, as I note, they have never bothered presenting it to
the public. So what specifically are you talking about that is
better than all the above evidence the government has?

LC> LC> Testimony indicated that Randy Weaver probably shot his
LC> LC> own son.

LC> MG> No it did not. It was the opinion of one person. It is
LC> MG> the

LC> Yes, and that is what the “one person” testified to. What
LC> is the difference between testimony and testimony?

LC> MG> first time the suggestion has been raised. It is most
LC> MG> likely in revenge for the closing argument in his trial
LC> MG> suggesting that he was shot by another marshall.

LC> You have evidence of this charge?

Also Weaver said, and no one has disputed it, that he fired
his gun into the air? So how does that get a person shot in the
back? Given the distance involved he would have had to have shot
nearly straight up for it to have come down that close.
Therefore it could not have hit him in the back.

He was killed with a 9mm bullet. Weaver fired a rifle.
Wrong kind of bullet.

Now maybe you have been reading too much of the Warren
Commission Report and have come to believe in magic bullets. The
rest of us do not.

LC> MG> It is further difficult to see how a bullet fired into the
LC> MG> air can cause the injury his received unless he was face
LC> MG> down at the time.

LC> What does THAT mean?

How can a shot be fired at an angle that would come down
only a few hundred feet away with it being nearly straight up?
Therefore it comes nearly straight down. That means to be shot
in the back he would have to be face down on the ground. Is that
clear enough?

LC> LC> AD> murdered in Waco out telling their story before Congress?

LC> LC> The four agents who were murdered at Waco by the
LC> LC> Davidians. So were the children. No child was killed by
LC> LC> anyone except the Davidians.

LC> MG> Six Davidians were murdered by the BATF while they were not
LC> MG> serving a warrant.

LC> No, they were shot while those inside the building were
LC> shooting at federal agents. One lesson to be learned is,
LC> if you don’t want to be shot by federal agents, don’t shoot
LC> at them.

**
Continued in the next message…
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (764)
To: All 21 Oct 95 02:41:10
Subject: gunfaq.zip

Some time ago I created a FAQ on the 2nd amendment. Many
have requested it and gotten it by disk. Now it is available as
from

ftp://users.aol.com/mgiwer5/gunfaq.zip

®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: Debate – (765)
To: Linda Terrell 21 Oct 95 04:52:10
Subject: Irs sovereignty

LT> MG> LT> It is NOT Clinton’s IRS. The IRS belongs to nobody, it
LT> MG> LT> is its own nation and its own law. Even the President
LT> MG> LT> can’t control it.

LT> MG> You mean LBJ and Nixon could do what Clinton can not?

LT> Well now, that is surely talking apples and oranges.

Ma’am, the accomplishments of LBJ and Nixon are rather well
documented. There has been no law change in the interim that I
am aware of. So why can not Clinton do the same thing?

®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: Debate – (766)
To: Michael Pilon 21 Oct 95 04:54:10
Subject: MICHAEL NEW – A REAL

MP> MP> No one really takes royalty seriously here but it beats
MP> MP> any MP> alternatives I have read about.

MP> MG> You have no honor.

MP> I never realized that you held Royalty in such esteem Matt.

I never took an oath to any royalty.

MP> For this I apologize Incidently isn’t telling someone he
MP> has no honour akin to calling him a liar ? Lester must
MP> decide.

I refer to your own words in that regard.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * History is what happened not what you think about what happe
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (767)
To: Melissa Just 21 Oct 95 04:55:10
Subject: religious bigotry

MJ> > MJ> I don’t see this as bigotry, it’s a fact. The separation of
MJ> > MJ> church and state is being challenged and since we live in a
MJ> > MJ> primarily Christian society few see anything wrong with

MJ> > I am showing you trashing Christians as acceptable while
MJ> > trashing Jews is not. Trash them all or none of them.

MJ> But Christians trash other Christians all the time! People
MJ> trash other people all the time. It’s human nature,
MJ> unfortunately. Though I agree with you that trashing people
MJ> period is unacceptable.

But it is so “legal” to trash Christians. I found one
person who claimed I was antisemitic because I did not speak nice
about the Jewish religion on the HOLYSMOKE conference. He was
and is still heavy into anti-christian bigotry. As a religion
they are all shit.

And besides, we have found their idols.

®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: Debate – (768)
To: Gary Rimar 21 Oct 95 05:00:10
Subject: religious bigotry

GR> MG> But I was talking acceptability. For example, it is
GR> MG> clearly permissible without raising an eyebrow to say the
GR> MG> religious right controls the Republican Party despite the
GR> MG> complete absence of evidence of control.

GR> Maybe it is all coincidental. Still, some have noticed
GR> that the moderate Republicans have dropped away from party
GR> prominence, and everyone these days seems to be talking
GR> about issues that parody the Christian Coalition (who, BTW,
GR> won’t remove me, a bisexual Jew, from their membership and
GR> mailing list (and I’ve asked them to do so three times!)).

What coincidence are you talking about? You may remember
the “school prayer” amendment Reagan promised and gave exactly
ONE speech supporting? Are you talking about the currently
offered “moment of silence” legislation? That is the sum and
substance of 15 years of everything the “christian right” has
gotten from the Reps.

GR> When most candidates run on a “no abortions” platform, I
GR> start to wonder. I don’t think that the Republican party
GR> is that united on the abortion issue. I heard about a
GR> survey (on “All_Things_Considered”) that states that the
GR> Republicans aren’t united on the abortion issue. Still,
GR> you won’t get that from the candidates.

There are a lot of reasons to be against abortion that are
not Christian. Even atheists can be against it on grounds of
taste if nothing else. But what I said was, that despite the
positions of the candidates, they give nothing to the CR.

Christian Right = Attractive Nuisance

Their votes are attractive, they are nuisance.

GR> MG> With a similar lack of evidence, claim liberal jews control
GR> MG> the media and take notes on the differences in the
GR> MG> response.

GR> The response is “aw geez, they’re saying that again.”
GR> People say this all of the time about the Jews (and we
GR> control the banks, and the insurance companies, and even
GR> though we weren’t in this country at the time we ran the
GR> slave trade, and blah blah blah blah blah!). It all
GR> depends on who is doing the stating and who is doing the
GR> reacting.

But stating one gets the bigot label, the other is accepted
wisdom, as in Screwy Louie’s pronouncements.

GR> Gary (no group has a monopoly on bigotry, or a response
GR> to it) Rimar

Is the pronunciation of your name anything like on Red
Dwarf?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Matt Giwer, the jack booted thug of cyberspace.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (769)
To: Michael Pilon 21 Oct 95 05:09:10
Subject: UP IN SMOKE !!!!!

MP> MG> Any rational government would promote smoking. Any
MP> MG> government against it based upon costs is lying.

MP> Actually in an accounting sense you are right. It raises
MP> tax money, decreases the medical load. But the one flaw is
MP> that death from smpke related diseases is a slow lingering
MP> process and that costs a lot.

That is where you err. It is one of the quickest forms of
cancer. If you live long enough, you will get some form of
cancer. Most all the rest take longer than lung cancer. And
compare the 6-12 months of whatever treatment for lung cancer to
up to a decade of nursing home care for something like
Altzheimer’s. And then when the Altzheimer’s type in the nursing
home gets some other disease (and at that age usually one named
after a person) they are treated for it in addition so they can
continue to live out their life as a vegetable.

Look up some real numbers. Compare dying ten years earlier
and more quickly from lung cancer to an additional ten years of
life with all the ten years of diseases and the usually lingering
terminal disease. Then, look up the rest of the smoking related
diseases, such as heart attack and stroke with their higher
likelihood of being immediately or with a couple weeks fatal.
And those are the majority of the related deaths.

MP> MG> I am only pointing out that you have to send armed people
MP> MG> to confiscate guns. That they are armed is an invitation
MP> MG> to a confrontation. The collectors will start dying.

MP> David Koresh and his merry band of followers ( Patriot
MP> martyrs shurely) proved that. So far you are the only one
MP> to point out this down side of the right to collect and
MP> bear gun-toys .What can it all mean ?

They lost eight total, the BATF lost four.

It means, the native Americans in Canada finally armed
themselves and you folks stopped pushing them around.

It means, a first generation American of Quebec ancestry
goes back to Canada for a government meeting and remarks if his
family had stayed there would be no way he could have been at
that meeting.

MP> MG> * RM 1.3 01261 * Deny guns and deny the right to self defense.

MP> LA Saturday night. An NRA wet dream !

The Saturday Night Special comes from a racist tune
Niggertown Saturday Night, which is where the name came from.
The racist Senator Metzenbaum has since retired. Farakhan is
hardly doing more than getting even.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The perimeter can’t be controlled.L. Thompson is coming.Reno
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (770)
To: Loralie Freeman 21 Oct 95 05:24:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!

LF> MG> It seems rather you are missing the point. Doing
LF> MG> everything we can right now, it is still less in average
LF> MG> lifetime medical costs for smokers than nonsmokers.

LF> No, not missing the point. Just looking a slightly
LF> different point (where’s Nillson when you need him!) of
LF> view than you are.

As long as you agree there is no argument against smoking to
reduce medical costs, we are in agreement.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Urban renewal, proof old money owns downtown property.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 250,000+files (813)960-7267 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/204 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101

®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: Debate – (771)
To: Patrick Corcoran 21 Oct 95 05:25:10
Subject: Up in SMoke !!!!!

PC> MG> Excuse me. Can you point to any evidence showing any
PC> MG> difference between age of first use of tobacco, alcohol and
PC> MG> marijuana?

PC> I didn’t address alcohol or marijuana. I stated that
PC> selling tobacco to minors is NOT a victimless crime.

Then why is it not a crime for a minor to buy tobacco? or
to misrepresent age? or to possess tobacco? or to have it in
their urine or blood? Who is committing the crime? The seller
or the user?

PC> MG> The tobacco police should be taking away the licenses of
PC> MG> drug dealers. It is a sign of a very, very misplaced
PC> MG> priority in our society to be making an issue of something
PC> MG> so trivial.

PC> I’m definitely not going to argue that people selling ANY
PC> contraband to minors ought not to be prosecuted.

And so should the person committing fraud upon the merchant.

®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: Debate – (772)
To: David Ingram 21 Oct 95 05:28:10
Subject: X-ians?

DI> MG> The police, folks who have looked all over the country
DI> MG> and never found a case of it, despite reports of it.

DI> Do you want to make a little bet? If I can produce one
DI> case where a police department said that Satanism was
DI> behind a crime, would you admit that it exists?

I have no idea what your bet might consist of but I am
interesting in reading what you have.

DI> MG> There are all stripes of whackos around. There are
DI> MG> people who will believe anything.

DI> And that is why you cannot say that there is not a whacko
DI> who would kill someone in the name of satan.

DI> By the way, you should read some of the writings of Charles
DI> Manson, they are quite interesting.

Right. Satanism exists. Ritual sacrifice, dogs living with
cats, real old testament stuff.

®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, debate 10-1995

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials