Documents

Giwer, debate 3-1995

LF> MG> A real Canadian is one who believes that his fellow
LF> MG> Canadians will take up criminal careers if they have easy
LF> MG> access to hand guns.

LF> Then I guess I’m not a *real* Canadian!

Then I would presume you have no problem with eliminating
Canadian laws against handguns.

®®юю R_9503 ююЇЇ
+++ююююю r_950301 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1370)
To: Loralie Freeman 21 Feb 95 21:21:00
Subject: CANADIAN GUN CONFISCATIO
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Our Father … lead us not into temptation …” J.H. Christ

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1371)
To: Peter Brownwater 21 Feb 95 21:22:00
Subject: ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PB> MG> The Origin of Human Rights
PB> MG> by
PB> MG> Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <2/17>

PB> Surely you jest!

Do you have a counter statement you would like to make?
Would you like to post your position on the subject?

PB> MG> Our rights are the recognition of our intrinsic nature
PB> MG> that took hundreds of thousands of years to develop. They
PB> MG> came from something much more interesting than a god. Our
PB> MG> rights have a basis in the entire world we live in and are
PB> MG> part of it. They are certainly not the granted by any
PB> MG> government.

PB> MG> * * * * *

PB> MG> Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

PB> I don’t think it’s quite ready for that yet Matt.
PB> Define that which is “much more interesting than a god.”

If you want to know more about a god you have to wait around
for one of its infrequent prophets to show up. If you want to
know more about anthropology you can read the texts, the
literature or get a degree and contribute on your own.

I am the impatient time. Rather than waiting around for a
prophet, I’ll go out and learn something.

PB> Further thought is encouraged by the reader.

I will be happy to review your position any time you are
ready to post it. At the moment you have added nothing to the
discussion.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “I kick ass for the Lord.” Father MacTavish

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1372)
To: Paul Smith 21 Feb 95 21:39:00
Subject: TOBACCO INDUSTRY

PS> What in the world does warnings about eating partially
PS> burned proteins and fats have to do with sitting NEXT to a
PS> person consuming such atrocities. Absolutely NONE!
PS>
PS> Your consumption of a half-pound of filet mignon which has
PS> been reduced to 2 1/2 ounces of carbon while sitting at the
PS> same, two place table with me will have absolutely no
PS> effect on MY health (with the possible exception of the
PS> serenity of my stomach). Your consumption of a cigarette
PS> under the same circumstances will.

Don’t sit next to them.

See how easy that was? Works every time.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1373)
To: All 21 Feb 95 22:17:00
Subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH

FM> > Why do you not be the first and tell us of Foster’s
FM> > qualification beyond being from Gore’s home state and it
FM> > having been his turn to pick an SG? Please be specific
FM> > about this man’s astounding successes in this man’s career
FM> > in public health.

FM> I agree. It is bad for a politician to reach down into
FM> the people at large to choose a luminary such as a cabinet
FM> member. He is better off choosing someone who is ALREADY
FM> rich and famous.

Rich is not relevant. Professionally “famous” is highly
desirable. There is a professional society in the area of public
health. They do give out awards annually. (Damned if I can
remember the name though but if I remember right, Koop received
one. And Koop told Reagan to go to hell on several issues.)

It isn’t possible in every area. Our current SECDEF was a
career civil servant in the DOD. At least he had a track record.
On the other hand pure policy positions such as commerce and
labor do not require such qualifications.

The Surgeon General is either one or the other. If it is
purely a policy position then the person is considered the
spokesrat for administration policy which has no bearing upon
public health matters.

If it is a position that has serious responsibilities going
with it then that person should be chosen to be qualified in
public health. As the Surgeon General is responsible for the NIH
and the CDC I would expect someone up to that responsibility and
not a policy wonk. That requires the person to be “famous” in
the field of public health.

It is not a situation where the selection criteria are in
order, public health experience, state of residency, party
affiliation. And that is what I am getting to. So far the only
thing I have heard is that he started programs. I have yet to
hear one word regarding the presumed success of those programs
and that should be the first criteria and not the last.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Double O Limbaugh, License to annoy.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1374)
To: All 22 Feb 95 17:00:00
Subject: VANISHING ACT

Congratulations all.

Niki “the great clown” Zanzo not only vanished from here but
from Debate from whence the life form was first observed.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The only god is all a real American needs.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1375)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Feb 95 00:46:00
Subject: CANADIAN GUN CONFISCA

MP> MP> MG> In other words it is the policy of Canada to make it more
MP> MP> MG> difficult for people to engage in certain lifestyles? ‘

MP> MP> Is owning a gun a lifestyle …? Are you gay..no I carry guns !

MP> MG> What carry? Sounds like the Canadian image of the US.

MP> No you brought up the lifestyle aspect ;0

Agreed. Now what bit of outrageous fantasy leads anyone to
believe gun owning is a lifestyle? The ownership of very few
things are indicative of a lifestyle. Boats are what readily
come to mind and then only expensive or working ones. Owning
homes, most people’s biggest investment, is completely neutral.

MP> MG> Making it illegal to own guns makes gun owners into
MP> MG> criminals when that is their only “crime.” It creates
MP> MG> criminals. A few years back DC made some 70,000 people
MP> MG> criminals overnight by simply making guns illegal. Among
MP> MG> the most famous criminals are Carl Rowan and the late
MP> MG> Vincent Foster.

MP> In the new gun legislation there was no question about not
MP> owning guns. It is a matter of registration….that was
MP> overlooked many years ago. Just righting a wrong.

I find your Canadian faith as touching as the faith of our
liberals that criminals will register their guns.

Not sure
MP> who Carl ROwan and Vincent Foster are.

Carl Rowan, syndicated columnist, discovered in criminal
possession of a handgun in Wash. DC.

Vincent Foster, high ranking Clinton appointee, discovered
posthumously in criminal possession of a handgun in Wash. DC.

Both certainly dangerous criminals.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming! Everybody preach something.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1376)
To: Michael Pilon 23 Feb 95 02:13:00
Subject: CANADIAN GUN CONFISCA

MP> MG> A real Canadian is one who believes that his fellow
MP> MG> Canadians will take up criminal careers if they have easy
MP> MG> access to hand guns.

MP> Spllaatttt.homebrew all over the screen….. Matt really
MP> can we share this with our friends ;).

You have been doing already. In fact I can now add that you
know that, after a registration law is passed, that those
Canadians who already own guns will go on a crime spree if they
do not register them AND if they register them they will not go
on a crime spree.

You Canadians are very strange.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming! Everyone look saved.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1377)
To: Bob Sakowski 23 Feb 95 02:26:00
Subject: ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

BS> MG> Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

BS> As an example of how *not* to compose an op-ed piece in
BS> Writing 101 perhaps? Don’t quit your day job!

Any time you are willing to demonstrate you can do better I
am interested in reading your efforts.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming! Everyone look busy.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1378)
To: Alan Hess 23 Feb 95 02:27:00
Subject: THE HOLOCAUST

AH> MG> I am making a different point. Regardless of the
AH> MG> number the result was the same for all numbers. So why not
AH> MG> simply a J? I do not see any particular value in the
AH> MG> process itself.

AH> You forget what meticulous record keepers the Nazis were.
AH> With numbers, they were able to document each and every
AH> individual they captured. Simple letters wouldn’t do the
AH> trick.

It is really about time to stop invoking this “meticulous”
image ever time there is something unexplainable. It is rather
treating them as “subhuman” to imply it is some form of
compulsive behavior.

People do not keep records without reason. People do not
make the time consuming effort of tattooing for no reason. Given
the claim of what the intention was there is no obvious
explanation other than the “meticulous” invocation to explain why
they gave a damn about it in the first place.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Satan is coming. Everyone look idle.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1379)
To: Jay Siegel 23 Feb 95 02:33:00
Subject: THE HOLOCAUST

JS> MG>PB> Less chance of infection.

JS> MG> Why would they care?

JS> I suspect they only tatooed identification numbers on those
JS> concentration camp inmates designated for slave labor of
JS> some type. They didn’t bother with those who were bound for
JS> the gas chambers or other forms of immediate execution.
JS> With identification numbers tatooed on their arms, they
JS> could be kept accounted for easily whether they had clothes
JS> on or not. No identification papers were required. If
JS> they died, they were accounted for. If they escaped it
JS> would have been known since that tatoo number didn’t appear
JS> at roll-call. The tatooed numbers helped the Germans
JS> maintain their maticulous records for the higher-ups. With
JS> numbers the slaves were reduced to something less than
JS> human in the minds of the people running the camps. It
JS> helped them justify the atrocious conditions of life in the
JS> slave labor camps and the disregard for the lives of the
JS> inmates since they were numbers rather than people with
JS> names.

Read the stories. The selection of work or execution was
supposedly determined upon arrival at the camp. But in any
event, we still have the question of “why did they care?” So
they are going to work, so what? The wrong person does the wrong
job? Someone is missing? A hell of a way to see who it is that
is missing. “Are you really you or another jude?” What was the
point? People really do not waste effort. What was the point?

Someone must have documented the reason as to why this was
done. Why tattoo if all you are going to do with it is burn it?

On the other hand, the only apparent use for such a thing is
long term identification of individuals and that is not
consistent with the rest of the story.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A sufficiently advanced person will appear to be god.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1380)
To: Charlie Gipson 23 Feb 95 02:46:00
Subject: TOBACCO INDUSTRY

CG> Matt…. when I eat a chacoaled steak.. I am only hurting
CG> myself. I am not hurting people two and three tables away,
CG> like smokers, and making people even farther away nauseous
CG> with the odor. Use a little common sense, huh?

Don’t sit near smokers if you are so fearful. Exercise some
free will for a change. (And seek help over this irrational fear
of yours. If you don’t get help at Charter, please get help
somewhere.)

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “I kick ass for the Lord.” Father MacTavish

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1381)
To: Bob Sakowski 23 Feb 95 02:49:00
Subject: US ARMY CAPT. IN HAITI FA

BS> JW> MG> It is like me pretending what I write is straight news.

BS> JW> You mean kinda like ABC, NBC, and CBS???

BS> MG> I am a bit more honest than them.

BS> ROTFLMAO…… I’m sure you meant incompetent didn’t you?

Do you really believe three independent organizations can
independently provide exactly the same slant on all events? Do
you honestly think they can never disagree? Do you truthfully
believe that over three decades the major network news
departments can possibly never have disagreed on the coverage of
any national event?

And finally, do you truly believe there is one and only one
correct view of every event?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming! Everyone look busy.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1382)
To: Frank Palmer 23 Feb 95 16:23:00
Subject: BELL CURVE FALLACY

FP> LG> I must confess to being a bit puzzled and disappointed by
FP> LG> this essay, Grant. It verges on being a neatly written
FP> LG> piece of slander. Did you mean to suggest that Charles
FP> LG> Murray is a racist? Did you mean to suggest that the Bell
FP> LG> Curve is a racist book? Just how much did the Pioneer Fund
FP> LG> contribute to Murray’s work? Was Murray aware of their
FP> LG> particular contribution? Did their contribution have any
FP> LG> effect on his research?

FP> Murray, or any scholar in the field, has to be aware of
FP> _Mankind_Quarterly_. The scholars he chose to quote are
FP> considered extremists. There is a great deal of difference
FP> between my accepting contributions from someone who is a
FP> member of the CPUSA (if it still exists), and my citing
FP> _People’s Daily World_ as a source for economic statistics
FP> which disprove the general opinion of economists on trend
FP> lines.

And as you do not see fit to answer the objections LG has
raised why bother to respond at all. He questions the basis for
the connection between this funding claim as the contents of the
book. You presume all that has been answered satisfactorily and
discuss the implications of it all being true.

Would you like to back up and start over?

FP> I refer you to the review in Feb. SciAm on the quality of
FP> research which was imported from Richard Lynn.

Kamin was the one reported in Feb issue. At best it was a
hatchet job following on the heals of the January issue diatribe
by one of its editors with no academic credentials. I have said
for years SA has a political agenda. This is just one more
example.

Half of Kamin’s article (diatribe) describes in detail the
faults of something that was not said. Quite an interesting
approach. We commonly call that a straw man argument.

Throughout the rest he elevates suggestions and speculations
by the authors to outright assertions and then he shows how those
assertions are rightly only speculations. A variation upon the
strawman attack. And IF you had read it you will note at no
place does he give an alternate suggestion as to the meaning of
the data but rather implies to the point of nearly stating the
authors have racist motivations.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “I kick ass for the Lord.” Father MacTavish

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1383)
To: Loralie Freeman 23 Feb 95 16:43:00
Subject: AIDS IMMIGRATION BAN BAD

LF> As I said in my statement: There was a clear indication
LF> that they individuals were going to return to the country
LF> of origin after the conference. These individuals were
LF> otherwise healthy. There was no chance of them dying from
LF> AIDS or HIV related illnesses any time in the near future.

And what of all the activists that wanted to enter to
protest outside the conference hall for the cameras? And were
even the participants to be confined to prevent their spreading
the disease? And please do not tell me that risk would be small
when they had the disease in the first place.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Satan is coming. Everyone look idle.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1384)
To: Peter Bradie 24 Feb 95 00:55:00
Subject: AUSCHWITZ

PB> MG> Sounds like a Luddite objection. “We murder the old
PB> MG> fashioned way, by hand.”

PB> Making light of it is as bad as revisionist history, Matt,
PB> if not worse. You can’t trivialize a monstrosity.

As I have pointed out it was nothing special in any regard
since it occurred. Such things are very common.

And we know, worshipping the holocaust does absolutely
nothing to prevent repetition.

As to trivializing, the joke regarded the objection to
mechanizing it. I find it impossible to hold murder is worse
because it is mechanized. I have no idea how anyone can. How do
you? Please explain.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Televangelists. The pro wrestlers of religion.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1385)
To: Bob Klahn 24 Feb 95 01:05:00
Subject: HORIUCHI’S EDUCATION

BK> MG> The “other” reply pointed out a legal theory introduced in
BK> MG> returned fire but again that was not demonstrated in court.

BK> MG> Then you need to deal with them rather than try to use a
BK> MG> difference in record as to who shot the marshall to avoid the

BK> Again, your reply is completely different from that posted
BK> by any of the other Weaver supporters. So, how do we deal
BK> with them? I’m not even going to try. If I get a chance
BK> I’ll look into the published records, not pay any
BK> attention to any of the msgs here.

Rather you are confused by not paying attention to the
separation of reports from theory. You are mixing what was
clearly stated to be the government report, the report of
Weaver’s friend and that of the defense attorney. They are
supposed to be different, that being the point of this exercise.

What started this was YOU citing only the government report.
When you were shown alternatives you started claiming they did
not agree so none could be believed. You should pay attention to
what is happening in the thread.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Satan is coming. Everyone look idle.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1386)
To: Frank Palmer 24 Feb 95 01:09:00
Subject: THE HOLOCAUST

FP> MG> I am making a different point. Regardless of the number
FP> MG> the result was the same for all numbers. So why not simply
FP> MG> a J? I do not see any particular value in the process
FP> MG> itself.

FP> You have obviously never been faced with the problems of
FP> inventory control;

I am very familiar with inventory control. That is why all
all boxes of cherry flavored have the same number and each box is
not numbered for inventory purposes.

and that is when the inventory doesn’t
FP> have legs and brains to hide, escape, answer role call in
FP> three places, etc.

What does it matter which hiding or escaped J or C is found?
Was the result any different?

FP> The nazis needed to know which prisoner had done what.

Why? They were all to be exterminated, right? So what was
the point of knowing what any particular one had done? I can not
imagine the slightest reason to care exactly who was being
reduced to ashes this week.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Satan did not fall. He was pushed.

— WILDMAIL!/WC v4.12
* Origin: DOC’S 822-4637, Fido. Internet Access Too! (1:3603/20020.0)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 396/1 3603/20020
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1526)
To: All 26 Feb 95 21:48:02
Subject: EO AND THE 4TH 01

Executive Repeal of the 4th Amendment
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <2/25>

On the 9th of February 1995, President Clinton signed and
Executive Order permitting, he imagines, a direct violation of
the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. While it is
questionable that if implemented and challenged it could pass
muster before the Supreme Court in itself it is of serious
interest to the citizens of this country. The first paragraph
contains the clear violation of the 4th amendment.

Section 1. Pursuant to section 302(a)(1) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve physical searches,
without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence
information for periods of up to one year, if the Attorney
General makes the certifications required by that section.

The 4th Amendment reads

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated; and no warrants shall issue, but upon
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons
or things to be seized.

The procedures in the 4th clearly refer to a warrant issued
by the court and the first section of the Executive Order (EO)
clearly acknowledges that requirement by waiving it. Now this is
not the secret wiretaps of a bygone era. These are, as is
spelled clearly spelled out, physical searches. These are the
tear the place apart and trash it kind of searches.
Wiretaps by anyone who felt like it were bad enough. Secret
court orders were bad enough. Now the government dispensing with
the need for judicial review and vesting the power to violate the
4th amendment in the Attorney General, a political appointee.
If this is not bad enough, what is foreign intelligence and
why would anyone expect to find any in this country? I will
grant we have some very intelligent foreigners in this country
and well as some intelligent citizens. But even if foreign
intelligence is to be found in this country, I have a question.
The Cold War is over. What foreign country is this
addressing? Lebanon, Rwanda, England, Mexico, Canada?
And as any good author I will not leave you guessing, the
answer is yes. You see, foreign intelligence is a term different
from national security intelligence. As any intelligence officer
will tell you, all information is valuable and you never know
when a connection will be made between something trivial and
something important.
Thus in authorizing these physical searches, there are no
bounds or limits should a person be suspected of having a laundry
ticket from a shop in Pua Pua. That would legitimately be
considered foreign intelligence. Who knows? It might be a
secret message to a Pua Puan spy.
Now we move on to Section 2

Sec. 2. Pursuant to section 302(b) of the Act, the
Attorney General is authorized to approve applications to the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court under section 303 of the
Act to obtain orders for physical searches for the purpose of
collecting foreign intelligence information.

This paragraph brings up more questions than it answers. In
Section 1 we find the political appointed Attorney General can
approve these “trash the place” searches. Now we discover she
can also apply to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to
obtain such orders. Pardon me. What is a Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court?
Is this court in the phone book? When was it established
and by who? Where does it meet? Who are its members? How are
they appointed to the court? When does the Senate Judiciary
Committee hold hearings on the nominations? What is their chain
of command to the Supreme Court? What are its powers (other than
issuing secret physical search warrants)? Is anyone tried by this
court? Over what laws does it have jurisdiction?
More succinctly, that in the hell is this thing? Does anyone
know for certain?
Don’t worry, it gets worse. We find in Section 3

Sec. 3. Pursuant to section 303(a)(7) of the Act, the
following officials, each of whom is employed in the area of
national security or defense, is designated to make the
certifications required by section 303(a)(7) of the Act in
support of applications to conduct physical searches:

(a) Secretary of State;
(b) Secretary of Defense;
(c) Director of Central Intelligence;
(d) Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation;
(e) Deputy Secretary of State;
(f) Deputy Secretary of Defense; and
(g) Deputy Director of Central Intelligence.

None of the above officials, nor anyone officially acting
in that capacity, may exercise the authority to make the above
certifications, unless that official has been appointed by the
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

Now, a, b, and c are high ranking officials but it does make
one thing very apparent, this is not about national security.
The Department of State is not involved in national security
intelligence but rather in all forms of intelligence about a
country other than that.
The Secretary of Defense and the Director of the CIA do have
legitimate interests in national security matters and therefore
intelligence related to national security but nothing more. In
fact the CIA is specifically excluded from operations within the
US so why is the CIA being given the power to search? I doubt
that applies only to other countries as neither the AG nor this
mysterious court would have jurisdiction in other countries.
Now it does sound rather impressive to have the Director of
the FBI on the list, we know they are great at catching spies,
save we must ignore this EO is not limited to espionage matters.
We also note that the Director of the FBI reports to the Attorney
General. That is his boss. If there were a better example of
lacking independence, it is difficult to find one.
Note that for e, f, and g the words Secretary and Director
are in the singular. Surprise folks the correct usage of the
terms would be plurals. There are a passle of them. I can
remember at least five Deputy Secretaries of Defense off of the
top of my head and it has been years since I was in that
business. There are at least two Deputy Directors of the CIA and
lord knows how many running loose in the State Department.
So what started as a narrow list of seven people has grown
to an unknown number that legally includes by failure to exclude
Deputies in charge of Personnel. The only saving grace in this
is the last paragraph that prohibits temporary appointees from
getting permission for these warrants until sanctioned by
Congress.
Now lets take a better look at this. This is the same
Attorney General who, based upon her own fantasy life, authorized
the murderous attack on Waco. And you will all remember, even
**
Continued in the next message…
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 259/99 270/101 280/1
SEEN-BY: 396/1 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950303 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1470)
To: All 28 Feb 95 14:55:56
Subject: ARE THEY “GETTING IT?”

************* Original From: DON KIMBERLIN
* FORWARDED * To: ALL
* MESSAGE * Date/Number: 02/23/95 – 0006481
************* On: GIFFER – 0161 – FCC
———————————————————————–

********** Original To: ALL
* CARBON * was By: DON KIMBERLIN
* COPY * posted: On: BORDER
********** Conf: 0080 – F-BROADCAS
———————————————————————–

…One of the favorite phrases of the past year or so in American
politics has been “They just don’t get it.” All ideological
arguments aside, it may be the Public Broadcasting people are
“getting it.”

…Amid increasing public consciousness that the Corporation for
Public Broadcasting may be populated by fat cats who won’t open
their books to public scrutiny, there seems to have been some
response to the cry raised about public broadcasting not reaping
any monetary benefit from its programming creations.

…And, as is typical in today’s media, news of a change from
“business as usual” down inside such an establishment is buried
way back in the bowels of the newspapers. Here’s some
interesting news, buried way back on page 6 of section D of the
February 23 <Charlotte Observer>:

PBS HOPES TO CAPITALIZE ON “PUZZLE PLACE” APPEAL
(Associated Press)

WASHINGTON – Public broadcasters, seeing profits in
merchandising, believe they may have found the next Barney: six
puppets from “The Puzzle Palace,” a children’s show popping up on
hundreds of public TV stations.
Dolls, play seets, talking books, games and eventually a
clothing line are planned. The Public Broadcasting Service says
this time it’s going to get a share of the merchandising profits
right from the beginning.
That’s something PBS failed to do …. “Barney and
Friends” and “Sesame Street”…. Children’s Television
Workshop…made $20 million…last year.
[…]
…a deal with Fisher-Price, 19% of the profits … go to
CPB, 31% each to …. co-producers…KCET and Lancit Media
Productions and 19% to actors, writers and others.

…My arithmetic may be failing, but it seems from the
announcement that no profit is left for Fisher-Price. Could it
be they’ve enjoyed so much from PBS profits over past years that
they feel it’s necessary to stem the tide of public opinion about
a major source of their products? Regardless, it seems at last
that somebody who’s been living well off the US Public
Broadcasting System that once needed government seed money is at
last “getting it.”

cc: ALL in 0084 on BORDER
ALL in 0015 on BORDER
ALL in 0000 on PETEXCH

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sind Ihre Tochter Achtzehn?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1471)
To: Robert Barnes 28 Feb 95 14:55:56
Subject: CANADIANS

RB> > You are working to confirm what I said? Thank you.
RB> >
RB> > Yes, you did get more and do get more “services” for
RB> > your dollar as your “dollar” (for what that is worth) is
RB> > not spent on defense which has ranged from 20-30% of our
RB> > expenditures since 1949. You folks spent around 5% on
RB> > defense.
RB> >
RB> > Certainly you got more for your dollar. You got the
RB> > differnece in defense expenditures thrown in and you still
RB> > spent more than we did.

RB> I think this debate is easily solved by looking at the UN
RB> statistics for the best country in which to live the last 3
RB> years running. Canada was the #1 country in 92, and 94 and
RB> came second in 93… The US? Well, let me put it this way..
RB> you barely made it into the top 10. And wer eno where near
RB> the top 5….

To be quite frank about that, as I have before, last year my
home town of Cincinnati was rated the best city to live in in the
US. The previous year it was something like Seattle. Trust me,
there were more than an objective evaluation involved in that
determination. Cincinnati is a second rate enema insertion
point for this country. On the other hand I have no idea what
Cincinnati could possibly have offered as a political bribe to
get that “honor.” Neither can I understand what either
Cincinnati or Canada was able to pay for their respective
“honors.”

RB> So you have a big army? Big whoopdeedoo… you also have
RB> the highest poverty rate of any industrialized country,

In relation to the US mean, not in relation to the Canadian
mean.

the
RB> lowest quality of education, the largest number of homeless
RB> people, and you have a social security net that is
RB> basically useless. So while your people are starving in the
RB> cold you can just say ‘thank you lord’ for your army….
RB> Cause that’s about all you’ve got.

But read what I wrote. Canada declined to pay its share of
the cost of the Cold War as they were “safe” under the US nuclear
umbrella and what you did not spend for defense you did spend to
indulge yourselves rather than to act responsibly.

RB> Oh – and consequently, the low Canadian dollar has meant
RB> billions and billions of extra dollars to OUR economy. WE
RB> can offer things to your citizens at a much lower cost in
RB> US$ than any US company could hope to….

And of course that makes US products and services that much
more expensive for Canada. And considering your raw materials
are equally cheap, thanks. Why do you folks not officially
devalue to a ten to one exchange rate and teach us a real lesson?
Go to 100 to 1 and we will certainly be begging you folks to
charge us more.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Even I am impressed.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1472)
To: Robert Barnes 28 Feb 95 14:55:58
Subject: CANADIANS

RB> > I have already given credit to Canada for supplying
RB> > cannon fodder to the UN. But when it gets serious, like
RB> > Iraq, I didn’t see Canada getting any particular
RB> > attention.

RB> Oh yeah.. Iraq… A war created by the US for no reason
RB> other than to protect their oil reserves..

Welcome to the real world. The US has no oil reserves in
the Middle East.

why the hell
RB> would Canada want to play a major role in such a rediculous
RB> war anyhow??

Canada was more than willing to provide cannon fodder for
that war. I was pointing out that even the UN is not stupid
enough to turn to Canada for leadership.

RB> Not that we didn’t.. we had sevral warships there..

And some 20,000 ground troops. BTW: You warships are a
joke save for the US equipment on them.

RB> *** Quoting Matt Giwer to Ken Newell dated 02-17-95 ***
RB> >
RB> > Rwanda.
RB> >

RB> Sorry.. yer wrong..

Close but not enough quoting.

RB> *** Quoting Matt Giwer to Ken Newell dated 02-17-95 ***
RB> >
RB> > Those are other things we could not spend money on
RB> > while you folks indulged yourself in social programs while
RB> > hiding under the US nuclear umbrella.

RB> We don’t need a nuclear umbrella..

Not any more but that is because the US broke the Soviet
Union. Before that happened you needed it bad but you folks
refused to pay for it.

we are one of the only
RB> countries in the world who has NO enemies… a Canadian can
RB> go anywhere in the world and be welcomed with Open arms…
RB> send an American to France or Iran and.. well, you know how
RB> it is.

Send a Canadian to Quebec and see what happens.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Marriage is grand. Divorce is twenty grand.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1473)
To: Pete Bucy 28 Feb 95 14:55:58
Subject: THE HOLOCAUST

PB> MG>PB> For the same reason that a social security card does not
PB> MG>PB> have just a “J” or a “C.”

PB> MG> I am making a different point. Regardless of the
PB> MG> number the result was the same for all numbers. So why not
PB> MG> simply a J? I do not see any particular value in the
PB> MG> process itself.

PB> A tattoo is the easiest way to *inventory* human
PB> machinery. These people were slave labor. With the numbers
PB> that they used, you could tell where this person belonged,
PB> who he worked for, or if it was time to terminate his
PB> model.

Why inventory anyone? The story has it that when they were
unable to work they were exterminated. What does a number have
to do with that? What does it matter who they worked for? If
they could not do the job the story has it they were
exterminated. This is not an answer.

PB> MG>PB> MG> Why a tattoo rather than a brand?

PB> MG>PB> Less chance of infection.

PB> MG> Why would they care?

PB> You don’t want sick workers, if you can avoid it.

First a brand has less chance of infection it cauterizes.
But then if the purpose is extermination why bother with when
they get sick? The story has it they were sent to the camps FOR
extermination. Why the numbers?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I didn’t make this world. I only brought it to its knees.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1474)
To: Pete Bucy 28 Feb 95 14:56:00
Subject: THE HOLOCAUST

PB> MG> Revolting? There are only so many times you can look
PB> MG> at starving people and emaciated bodies and still be moved.
PB> MG> There are only so many times the same story can be repeated
PB> MG> before one is no longer impressed. It is hard to imagine
PB> MG> any adult being “revolted” any longer.

PB> I don’t believe that I shall ever reach a point where such
PB> horrors are not revolting to me.

You must be working at it. Frankly, the tapes I have seen
from Rwanda and Somalia make Auschwitz look rather trivial. I
presume it is only the active shooting that has prevented similar
tapes from Chechnya and Bosnia.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sleeping one mat; awake half a mat; three bowls for rice.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1587)
To: Frank Palmer 1 Mar 95 13:56:54
Subject: CHAOS IS WORSE THAN Y 1/2

FP> MG> We can not know in the sense of predicting. After the fact
FP> MG> we can know anything we wish.

FP> This statement is simply untrue at the quantum, or as I put
FP> it before, subatomic level. You cannot know the spin of a
FP> particle with regard to North at the same time that you
FP> know its spin with regard to East. You can’t know what
FP> those two BOTH were at the same past time. You can’t know
FP> both the position and the momentum of a particle at any
FP> past time to accuracy greater than a limit.

We are not communicating here somehow. After the fact it
has been measured. Thus the quantum states have collapsed to a
single state, that which happened when it was measured or when
its effects were observed.

FP> MB> The point being that this inability to predict is the
FP> MB> inroad of unpredictability into our apparently ordered
FP> MB> universe. Once it is present, it is only a matter or
FP> MB> either degree or time before that which appears predictable
FP> MB> in the short term or macro sense simply does something that
FP> MB> is not predictable.

FP> It’s a matter of time before the air molecules in a closed
FP> room all go to the same end of the room. It is a matter of
FP> TRILLIONS OF YEARS.

The time of a particular radioactive decay of a particular
atom can not be known. Agreed? That decay causes a birth
defect. What can not be known or predicted is now within human
experience.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I’m upping my standards, up yours.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1588)
To: Frank Palmer 1 Mar 95 13:56:54
Subject: FLORIDA MILITIA LEADER

FP> FP> The previous post was not specific enough, but if he was
FP> FP> deliberately sending information to an active jury without
FP> FP> going through the court, he was indeed in contempt of
FP> FP> court.

FP> MG> One can only be in contempt of court, in this
FP> MG> circumstances, if there is a specific court order directed
FP> MG> towards him that he has violated.

FP> I spoke to a lawyer about this. His words were “obstruction of
FP> justice.”

Fine with me. That is a crime not contempt. It is a matter
for the prosecutor not the judge.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Tonya Harding, Spokeswoman for Full Contact Figure Skating.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1589)
To: Lester Garrett 1 Mar 95 13:56:54
Subject: THE HOLOCAUST

LG> Nope, sorry, Pete, but you’ve missed it’s significance.
LG> See my message posted a few days back on the subject (I
LG> believe it was to All and ran under the AUSCHWITZ subject
LG> line. If you didn’t get it, I’ll be only too happy to
LG> repost it for you. Matt is so caught up in his anti-Jewish
LG> thingy that he has completely missed the boat on the
LG> signficance of the Holocaust and why we must *_NEVER_* be
LG> allowed to forget it.)

You might wish to repost it because it did not arrive here.

But as to being allowed to forget it, does that mean it is
those who are bored to tears with it against those who are going
to continue force fitting it into every possible context?

Now for those folks, have I got a Holocaust.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Soar with the Eagles, and the only way to go is down.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1844)
To: Alec Grynspan 2 Mar 95 11:32:54
Subject: “HIV LIES EXPOSED!” Rec’d

AG> TB> Where did you get the idea that the HIV retrovirus “adapts” to
AG> TB> human DNA?

AG> From the fact that every individual with HIV actually seems
AG> to have a different variant of the virus – plus what a
AG> virologist mentioned to me. I’m no expert here, so I’m
AG> basically “parroting” info that I was provided.

You got bad information. The immune system deals with viral
infection by learning to identify the protein sequence that
surrounds the RNA sequence that is the active part of the virus.
This sequence is very specific to most virus and the body adapts
to that specificity.

For HIV that sequence is highly variable and thus the body
can not recognize it immediately. The reason HIV is a such a
problem is that variations occur faster than the body can learn
to attack it. Were it to change more slowly it would not be much
of a problem.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hell, I am almost always right 99.7% of the time.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1845)
To: All 2 Mar 95 11:32:56
Subject: ABOLISH ABUSE 2

Abolish ABUSE, 2
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <03/01>

Beyond the written law, the idea of anonymous abuse
reports an government intervention in people’s lives has an
immoral dimension. It something that goes beyond law to a more
fundamental aspect of human nature. It invokes a fundamental
response when a stranger knocks on your door and you are told
there is a rumor circulating about you, prove yourself innocent.
Most people will respond to authority they recognize, the
police, a person with a badge, some recognized symbol of
authority. Even though that person often exceeds his authority
at least it is something recognized. When a social worker shows
up what are people to think?
Since when is a person required to defend themselves against
rumors? On the other hand it not the normal reaction to a false
accusation on the order of, lets hear that son of a bitch say it
to my face!” But there is no son of a bitch. There is only an
anonymous voice on a hotline.
And then there is the intrusion of a stranger into family’s
life. Upon what grounds is this done in this country? For the
children of course. And by extension in many states to anyone.
In some states it is even possible for a person to abuse
themselves. I would be the last to deny a flagellant is a bit
off in the head but I really do not see the reasoning here. I am
reminded that suicide is illegal and the penalty is death.
By what presumption can any person judge the lifestyle of
others? Certainly we have laws and they are written by our
legislatures and they rarely deviate from the known standards of
harm to another. But these laws are nebulous, the not only
establish life styles but they assign roles to people who never
had them.
One person can be found negligent of another in the
household when there was never a custodial relationship in the
first place. Why? A custodial relationship is assumed. Why?
Because that is what would be expected. And if people do not
live up to this standard? They are at fault of course.
Far fetched? No. This “no penalty” rumor hotline creates
more cases than the most honest worker can deal with. There is
not the time, presuming people are cooperative and are able to
explain their family relationships, for the investigator to
understand what is going on. Some mold has to be found to fit
the situation.
And what does an anonymously accused individual feel like in
this case? Whatever the nearest mold that fits, that is him.
And then the person is “cooperating” with his judge, jury and
executioner. This stranger has the power to turn his life upside
down at the determination permitted in the time available.
This is a moral wrong and that is the way it strikes anyone
on the receiving end. And if a person refuses to cooperate then
what is the presumption? It is the old, if you are innocent what
do you have to hide gambit.
If a report is made of witches and warlocks abusing
children, guess what? They have to be investigated by law. If
you are accused of being either you have to defend yourself. And
we know from very prominent cases that the very absence of
evidence is often considered proof of guilt. And this proof is
not required to be demonstrated in court but rather the accused
must prove his innocence. Not in my constitution but certainly
it is acceptable if it is done for the children or the old or
those in some manner “challenged.”
What is missing in all of this are the protections for the
accused that we have all come to expect if we are the accused.
If we are accused of some form of abuse we have no protections in
law. And of course findings against a person are confidential to
the point the “guilty” can not even obtain the findings without
swearing not to make them public.
That means there are criminal penalties for a person going
to the media to publicize the unfairness, inequities and plain
falsehoods, in addition to any sloppy work and poor investigative
procedures that may have occurred. Did you ever wonder why you
never hear of abuses on the evening news save if they come out in
court? Now you know why?
Where else is the accused committing a crime if he tells his
side of the story to the media? Where else is a finding kept
secret? Since when are secret trials held by one person never to
see the light of day save if the person can afford to go to court
— and maybe not even then unless it is all elicited as
testimony.
This is our system. It is for the children. It is good to
think we are saving our children to be raised correctly in this
world. After all, they will have children some day and they will
be subject to these same kangaroo courts lacking any principle of
justice since before the Magna Carta. It is the legacy we are
passing on to them and for them.
After all, it only effects other people’s children. Never
our own.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1846)
To: All 2 Mar 95 11:32:56
Subject: AOLISH ABUSE

Abolish ABUSE
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <03/01>

More specifically, let us abolish 1-800-xxA-BUSE hotlines.
More specific than that, let us abolish anonymity on such abuse
hotlines. And while doing that let us put criminal penalties for
false and unfounded reports on these hotlines.
It started in the early 1980s. Congress discovered there
was child abuse going in their districts. Congressrat Foghorn
found he had 38,431 cases of child abuse in his district each
day. That could not be permitted to continue. Something had to
be done and done right now.
The good Congressrat also discovered the only things standing
in the way of stopping abuse immediately were the US Constitution
and his state’s constitution and a few other minor details such
as at least two centuries of legal precedent. But then, as long
as it was being done “for the children” such things were not of
serious concern.
It was “discovered” in this testimony that people had so
little concern for children that they would not report abuse
cases if they had to give their name so anonymous allegations
were permitted. After all, under the relevant constitutions a
person has the right to be faced by their accusers, unless of
course there are children involved. If children are involved
there is no such right.
As centuries of due process would have it, a criminal matter
(and if this is not criminal what is the point?) is investigated
by criminal investigators. This would be the police at least,
perhaps detectives, people versed in criminal law.
If there is evidence of a criminal offence then an arrest is
made and rights are read. And if it is a false arrest the
citizen has redress. All that is “too hard” in matters where
children are involved. In those cases children are simply
removed without a charge of criminal wrong doing. And of course
the people doing this have immunity from civil prosecution as
does the government agency for which they work. After all, it is
“for the children.”
It is admitted that one story of a dead child is worth a
thousand constitutional rights. It is further admitted that
there are in fact some horrible examples of child abuse in the
country. But I have to ask, does this justify figurative and
literal witch hunts?
We have this general concept of justice, that it is better
for many guilty to go free rather than a few innocent be
convicted. Where is it written this does not apply when there
are children involved? Does not a person have a right to defend
himself against clearly stated accusations of violation of
clearly stated law? Why not in cases when there are children
involved?
The hotline calls go to an on the job trained person who is
immune from all but civil service administrative procedures for
improper actions. This person can take actions based upon any
ideas that are currently popular rather than those which have
been established in law. This person is the sole arbiter of
actions that can disrupt a family for months if not years on
opinion rather than facts which are subject to impartial review
by peers.
But then, children are involved and anything can be done for
the children in to their detriment, just in case. I point out
that some women, many less than the feminists would have us
believe, die because they refuse to prosecute in abusive
relationships. If the rules were the same, a social worker
should have the power to force such women out of the home and
into a shelter on their own say so. Save the ACLU among sixteen
other groups would be vying for the right represent the woman in
a case they could not lose.
I will grant there are dozens of successful cases we do not
hear about but then that success is in the eye of the case
worker. The claim the removal of the child prevented harm to
child is in the “we can never know” category. We have to
presuppose something would have happened had the child been left
with the family but that can never be known as the child was not
left with the family.
Some states, such as Florida, have used the child abuse
hotline and anonymity and immunity as a model and have extended
this “protection” to everyone. Some would call this progress but
what do we have as a result?
The majority of cases by busybody neighbors who just do not
like the person or their life style or the way they treat their
children. We have malicious cases by ex-spouses trying to cause
problems for former spouse even decades after the divorce. And
in a few cases we have truly criminal cases, a very few but
perhaps enough to keep the system going under the foreign
principle that it is better that a thousand be hassled than one
be harmed.
Is this a hassle? It may come as a surprise to many that
there really are people in this world who do not like the state
showing up and inquiring as to the details of their family lives.
And if people act hostile toward the intrusion of course they
must have something to hide.
People suddenly find themselves confronted by a stranger,
implementing procedures they know nothing about, who has powers
they do not know the extent of, based upon an unknown accuser.
And someone is surprised they are not fully cooperative? even
aggressive? This procedure is the closest thing to “The Trial” we
have in this country.
Are there remedies? Certainly and there are and they have
been around for centuries. Since when is there such a thing as
an anonymous accuser? Eliminate that. And the penalty for a
false accusation? The same as it is for calling 911 with a false
crime report. Up front that eliminates most of the abuses.
Of the remaining, real crimes are investigated by real
criminal investigators. And the action is not the removal of the
“victim” but the arrest of the perpetrator. And if there is no
perpetrator in the eyes of those skilled in the art, in whose
eyes can there by one?
The loss of constitutional, civil and due process rights in
the “abuse” cases is obvious. The potential for harm is obvious.
It is not necessary to bring up the horror stories of psychotic
social workers and even delusional prosecutors who believe in the
witches to make this case. A person has more rights when stopped
for running a stop sign than when alleged to have sexually
abused their own children.
When will the abuse of human rights end when done “for the
children”? Some would say, never!, as the allegation is too
horrible. Others might remember our system of justice does not
make such exceptions. After all, if they only come for others
why should you speak?

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The 1040, the Torah, the Torah I can read.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1847)
To: John Clifton 2 Mar 95 11:32:58
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

JC> JC> Matt is having his problems these days after getting
JC> JC> booted off CompuServe for getting upset when he was
JC> JC> challenged on his bogus claims the Holocaust didn’t happen.
JC> JC> Cut him some slack.

JC> > Odd! I’ve never seen any posting of Matt’s that said that the
JC> > Holocaust didn’t happen!

JC> Actually, Matt claims that Jews were never gassed.

I have said the evidence is not credible. I have invited
people to post credible evidence. I never appear to get any. I
do get a lot of what people think is evidence but which is
contrary to known reality.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A coward dies a 1000 deaths, a hero 1. Best odds in town
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1848)
To: George Noonan 2 Mar 95 11:32:58
Subject: ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

GN> MG> We hold that our rights are not granted by our government or
GN> MG> by any agency. The US Constitution holds we are endowed by our
GN> MG> Creator with specific rights. That wasn’t too bad a guess in
GN> MG> those days.
GN> MG> Today we can do better. It is not that we are greater
GN> MG> thinkers than the founders. Rather it is that we have the
GN> MG> benefit of two centuries of science, particularly anthropology
GN> MG> and animal behavior. Our “rights” are what any social animal
GN> MG> enjoys under ideal conditions within its own social group.

GN> The psuedo-science of anthropology

This is the first time I have read that appellation.
Specifically, what problem do you have with the subject —
granted Margaret Mead was a fool but her time has come and gone
and in fact never was in professional circles.

is not needed to
GN> delineate the basic human rights. Indeed, with such as the
GN> outright lies perpertrated in the name of “science” by such
GN> as Margret Mead, and the politicizing the subject at such
GN> universities as Stanford, antropology has done more to
GN> obfuscate basic human rights than any other acedemic
GN> discipline. No, one need go no further than Cicero’s “de
GN> finibus bonorum et malorum” written over 2000 years ago to
GN> determine what Nature and Nature’s Creator has in mind for
GN> man.

There is also no need to interject a “creator” for which
there is no evidence of existence. It gets in the way as the
liberals so intent upon circumscribing human rights when they do
not like the consequences (they want control of results) they
simply substitute their liberalism for religion while promoting
atheism. If they can get the theistic basis out of the way then
liberalism defaults to the basis of rights.

And you will note they adopt “christian” objectives but
rather than preaching voluntary compliance with the “good” they
attempt to force people to be good by law. And of course they
would punish those who are not being “good” according to their
laws. Thus they attempt to co-opt the best of both possible
worlds, the ideals of Christianity and the power to determine
what it means in practice.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Bill and Al’s Bogus Adventure.” DEMs ’92
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1849)
To: Pete Bucy 2 Mar 95 11:33:00
Subject: WHAT SECOND AMENDMENT

PB> I don’t think so. Because even without firearms, you would
PB> find the natives to be restless and your life would not be
PB> worth the Canadian change in your pockets.

Expect a warning for this insult.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Do you expect the poor to hire you?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950305 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1580)
To: George Noonan 3 Mar 95 05:06:06
Subject: AUSCHWITZ

GN> LG> Frankly, I’m much more troubled by those who would choose
GN> LG> to forget what happened than by those historical
GN> LG> revisionists who would attempt to persuade us that it never
GN> LG> did.

GN> How right you are. The killing fields of Cambodia were a
GN> direct result of forgetting the past. My only other
GN> comment here is that the Holocaust was a mad man’s attempt
GN> to destroy a people for no more reason than they were there
GN> to be destroyed. Stalin killed many more for what he
GN> thought was a humanitarian ideal (the starvation of the
GN> Ukrainians). That too should be remembered.

Pay attention to history for a moment. There have always
been such slaughters. That means before and after the WW II
Holocaust. What you folks fail to realize is that at times
people WANT to slaughter others. That is plain and simple what
we can see from history.

“Remembering” is as likely to encourage and to discourage a
repetition in this regard.

In practice, neither the holocaust nor any other item of
history had made a damn bit of difference.

It has done no good. It has been worthless. It is a
meaningless exercise.

OR, please be honest in your answer, if the Balkan WW I
slaughter of Muslims had had museums all over Germany, do you
really believe it would have made a difference? PLEASE be
explicit in your response.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * That which does not destroy us makes us greater.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1593)
To: Trish Day 3 Mar 95 05:06:06
Subject: AND THE BIBLE

TD> Pity I didn’t see the original message, because I haven’t
TD> had the pleasure of being accused of blasphemy in a long
TD> time. I kinda like knowing how long and varied my list of
TD> “sins” is at any given time…. <sigh>

As long as you don’t say “Jehovah,” plain ‘nilla.

®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 – (1605)
To: All 3 Mar 95 05:06:06
Subject: WACO JUSTICE

682 days after Waco
The murders are still free.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sufficiently advance manufaturing looks like creation.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950306 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1616)
To: All 4 Mar 95 05:18:50
Subject: HOW TO STOP DRUGS

How to stop Drugs
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/3>

In practice the way to stop drugs is rather simple. It is
rather something that simply requires more courage and less
principle than we have.
I have addressed the obvious problem that there is nothing
our society can or will do to drug dealers or users that is worse
than what drug dealing or using will do to them. Clearly a drug
dealer risks being shot down in the street by rivals. A drug
user risks a slow and painful death as a result of using drugs.
So the answer is clear on how to deal with the street level.
We need to simply apply greater penalties than are part of the
drug scene. For example, a drug dealer does have to worry about
rivals but then there are plenty of times when there are no rival
gangs. Thus we simply need to make being shot down on the street
for dealing drugs an every day event such that it is a penalty
for drug dealing.
Thus we can simply charge the police and citizen with
“holiday” on drug dealers. The pickup trucks can bring out the
bodies in the morning. The same for the users. This is a matter
of supply and demand and as long as there are users there will be
suppliers. So the more users that wind up in the morgue the
better.
Of course this will require suspending some other laws, such
as identifying the dead and the cause of death and the like.
Perhaps we could even do away with the morgue and have the trucks
deliver direct to the crematorium. We would also have to suspend
any laws that would hold a person guilty for making a mistake in
who they kill.
Even then this would likely simply move drug dealing from
the street corners to more private and protected places. It will
therefore be necessary to interdict all drugs coming into this
country. The Navy has already worked out the requirements for
that scenario. It is very simple. Any plane that can not be
identified is shot down.
It is the sheer number of commercial and private planes that
fly into and out of this country that requires this policy. It
is just too easy for planes to get into the country by flying
under the radar and there are too many of them to follow
individually. Only military aircraft have the speed to intercept
them in any event.
Despite being the greatest military power in the world the
US simply does not have the assets to do anything other than
shoot them down. That is the way it is.
Again where there is a potential market there will be
suppliers and certainly trucks, cars, packages, whatever coming
into the country will means of transport. Save for the mails
there will be people operating the rest. Summary execution upon
discovery of drug smuggling is the only thing that can discourage
drug smuggling.
And then of course there are the countries and states such
as Kentucky and Oregon that produce the drugs in the first place.
It is impossible to locate all of the growing areas with our
present technology. Therefore the only practical means of
eradication is to burn out the crops over the entire suspected
area.
In this case we need to do some experimentation before
resorting to nuclear weapons. Although it is clear that fire
bombing works well against cities that is against the use of dry
wood and it is not clear that it will work where the material is
green wood. Forest fires start in the dry season for a reason,
because it is dry. Certainly to avoid an international incident
with Columbia we could test drop say 100 small incendiaries per
acre over say 1000 acres of Kentucky or Oregon to see if it is
possible to start a firestorm during the growing season when it
is naturally moist.
Should that fail to cause fires that will destroy hundreds
of thousands of acres at a time then it is unfortunate but
strategic nuclear weapons in the 10 megaton and up range are all
that will work to eradicate the drug crops. Of course when these
are used against Columbia the yield can be modified for the
effect of the mountains upon progress of the thermal front of the
blast.
Truly, if we do wish to stop the drug trade, we have the
means in hand. Nothing else we have tried nor anything we are
currently doing has done anything but increase the drug trade.
It is time to seriously address what needs be done to end the
drug trade once and for all.
I am certain human beings can find it in their heart to do
what is necessary to stop it once and for all.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

®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 – (1617)
To: All 4 Mar 95 05:18:52
Subject: LEGISLATIVE TYRANNY

The Tyranny of the Majority
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/3>

I find something a bit strange. We are constantly assured
we are not subject to the tyranny of the majority simply because
we have a Constitution. That is supposed to mean a simple
majority of 51% can not do something unpleasant to the remaining
49%. OK. I can see that. And we require 2/3 majority of
Congress and/or 3/4 of the states to make changes to the
Constitution. Save I see a small problem here.
The Constitution is in principle at least, in broad terms
and acts as guidelines for laws. But then under these broad
guidelines — affirmative action for an example — 51% can force
88% to give 12% special treatment and impose the full force of
the law those who fail to do so.
Let us step back and view the matter more carefully for a
moment. And up front I will grant that a “landslide” majority is
very difficult in a democracy. But let us look at at least the
theory of a representative democracy.
In theory, and please suspend cynicism for the sake of
argument, our representatives are those who have been chosen for
their wisdom in forming law and policy for our country. If not,
for what purpose are they being elected? An election should be
simply choosing the best people and the disagreement should be
only over which is the best to do. There should be no question
that the best person for the job has been chosen. (Again,
cynicism aside.)
Now if this is to be accepted then let us look at the US
Senate (as there are 100 members and it makes percentages very
easy to talk about.) Now here we have, regardless of what it is
that is desired to do, the best 100 people for the job of
legislating. In the best of all worlds these would be the best
100 people in the country.
Now let us consider a law that is passed 51 to 49. Is there
any rationale for saying the 49 are wrong? I have raised this
point regarding Supreme Court decisions. In fact, if a person
did something that four of the nine best legal minds in the
country agreed with, he still goes to jail. In this regard, when
49 of the best legislative minds in the country (theory again)
hold that something is wrong, why should it become law?
Is this not the “democracy” the “tyranny of the majority” we
are supposed to be protected from? If we agree with 49% of the
best legislative minds in the country then why should be bound by
a simple majority?
Let us look at it more seriously. Let us say the laws
against murder had a time limit and needed to be legislated again
every ten years — that they had a sunset provision. I find it
hard to imagine that renewing these laws would would not get a
99% majority with the obligatory abstainer who wants the
attention or is terminally bewildered. The same with theft and
rape and kidnapping and a host of others in that vein.
But when it comes to legislating every jot and tiddle of our
daily lives where did this simple majority idea come from?
It is not hard to see where it came from. First the
presumption was that, like the Supreme Court, the size of such
legislative bodies would be so small that (four out of seven as
it started) was well over 51%. And on the other hand, the other
intent was that legislation would not deal with minutia but
rather deal on broad issues such as making declaring new and
clever forms of theft and murder illegal also.
Rather what we have is a legislative food fight where the
last pie wins.
I would propose a change. ALL LAWS require the equivalent
of a 3/5ths or greater majority to be enacted or passed or
whatever the procedure at the level of government of interest.
If we are truly to avoid the tyranny of a simple majority then we
certainly need a requirement for a greater majority than we have.
For example, at the federal level, we have found that under
the broad income tax amendment that once a tax upon income is
permitted the determination of what is income is both arbitrary
and capricious and it is permitted by the amendment. For example,
it permits a simple majority to hold that only profits are income
for a corporation but that every penny is income for an
individual. It even permits legislation that imputes a value to
something that has no value.
Everyone has a pet peeve about income tax. It is only one
of many pet peeves. Now what say that ALL provisions of income
tax were required to have such support that not just 51% but 60%
or even 2/3 were required to agree with the idea? At least then
the laws that are passed would have more than passing fancy
majority attached to them.
On the other hand a 100% majority has been tried
historically, in Poland to be specific, and it has been found to
be a failure. The presumption of the “best” legislators fails
when it presumes ALL legislatures are the best. But certainly if
the best we can do is elect slightly over half of our
representatives that are the “best” then we need to take a more
serious look at our election process.
At the root of this problem is our party system. I am not
saying that more parties would be better but rather that party
loyalties and party machines are the cause of imprudent votes and
incompetent legislators.
We need a better system. And the start of that better
system is in changing our system of legislation so that a
significant majority rather than a simple majority is required to
pass any law. Granted that this may prevent many laws from being
passed but if the theoretical 49% disagree with a law, what
support and respect does a law have? And why should a law that
49% disagree with have any respect or compliance in the first
place?
As with the Supreme Court, should 49% disagree with a law
does that make 49% criminals? Or simply thinking citizens who
hold the law is wrong? What moral weight does such a law have
other than a 51% majority was mustered at the time it was passed?
At least if there were a 2/3 majority requirement for a law
then the “losers” could be considered a serious minority and that
would give some moral weight to the enforcement of the law.
But when we face laws that we know were passed because
Senator Foghorn’s arm was twisted until he accepted the pork to
get his vote we know the law has no moral weight and is a hollow
as the bombast that proposed it in the first place.
More practically, why should you MORALLY pay one penny of
any of the 1993 tax increases? Simply because one freshman
Congressrat voted for it on the promise of a hearing with the
President in her district? I can sense an obligation from here
to Sunday, but that deal does not obligate me in the least.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Dial 1-800-ABCDEFG to improve your reading comprehension.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1618)
To: Grant Karpik 4 Mar 95 05:18:54
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

GK> JC> Matt is having his problems these days after getting
GK> JC> booted off CompuServe for getting upset when he was
GK> JC> challenged on his bogus claims the Holocaust didn’t happen.
GK> JC> Cut him some slack.

GK> > Odd! I’ve never seen any posting of Matt’s that said that the
GK> > Holocaust didn’t happen!

GK> JC> Actually, Matt claims that Jews were never gassed.

GK> They were actually nice little holiday camps. 😉

Actually too many people need to call 1-800-ABCDEFG to learn
to comprehend what I have said.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Brevity is the soul of lingerie.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1619)
To: Peter Brownwater 4 Mar 95 05:18:54
Subject: ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

PB> Matt Giwer wrote to Peter Brownwater:

PB> PB> MG> The Origin of Human Rights
PB> PB> MG> by
PB> PB> MG> Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <2/17>

PB> PB> Surely you jest!

PB> MG> Do you have a counter statement you would like to make?
PB> MG> Would you like to post your position on the subject?

PB> If you weren’t so full of yourself, (copyright…sure!) you
PB> might stand a chance of being taken seriously. Get on…

PB> MG> Do you have a counter statement you would like to make?
PB> MG> Would you like to post your position on the subject?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Stand aside! I write large messages.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1620)
To: William Morgan 4 Mar 95 05:18:56
Subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH

WM> You won’t hear much bragging on that count, since the
WM> medical education program Dr. Foster headed LOST its
WM> accreditation!
WM>
WM> The post is nothing but a PR flack for the administration
WM> and is NOT needed. I have already petitioned Nancy
WM> Kassebaum to solve the controversy by simply ELIMINATING
WM> the Surgeon General position.

Abolition would require Clinton to sign it.

Rather petition Gingrich to zero fund the office. Zero
funds, zero staff, zero office space, zero uniform budget.

We have to start cutting costs some place.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Live fast, love well, and have a glorious end.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950309 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1949)
To: Frank Palmer 7 Mar 95 21:44:50
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

FP> MG> I have said the evidence is not credible. I have invited
FP> MG> people to post credible evidence. I never appear to get
FP> MG> any. I do get a lot of what people think is evidence but
FP> MG> which is contrary to known reality.

FP> We have written records of the Americans who liberated
FP> camps. We have memoirs of survivors. I saw movies of the
FP> camps in school in the decade after the war. People on
FP> trial for running the camps made various defenses. they
FP> did not deny that there were death camps.
FP>
FP> What of that is not credible?
FP>
FP> What evidence could there be that is not there?

Of course there were concentration camps. No one questions
that. No one questions millions died in them. Even in the
“enlightened” Soviet Union the life expectancy was seven years.

But I would like you to explain to me just how people can
scream for a half hour (I have reputable sources for this claim)
while breathing cyanide when the same gas used in US gas chambers
causes the cessation of breathing in no more than two breaths.

When you have answered this question we can go further.
Warning, you will have to explain how people were stuffed in a
room to a density of 25 per square meter AND people were able to
freely walk among them as the next question.

®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 – (1950)
To: Dave Harris 7 Mar 95 21:44:50
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLEяяяяя

DH> I have seen many pictures of the death camps, as well as
DH> dozens of testimonials, but maybe Matt’s right: maybe the
DH> Zionist-Communist-Stalinist -Trotskyite-Masonic-Trilateral
DH> Commission-CIA-KGB-UFO conspiracy has contrived the
DH> Holocaust in order to elicit sympathy…A kind of hyper-
DH> sophisticated whining.

Would you like to compete with the other challenger and be
the first to answer how people can scream for a half hour
breathing cyanide while in our gas chambers the same gas stops
breathing entirely in about two breaths or less?

I am interested in your explanation.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Take and forget is not an oath of office.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950310 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1881)
To: Pete Bucy 8 Mar 95 04:50:52
Subject: THE HOLOCAUST

PB> MG> Why inventory anyone? The story has it that when they
PB> MG> were unable to work they were exterminated. What does a
PB> MG> number have to do with that? What does it matter who they
PB> MG> worked for? If they could not do the job the story has it
PB> MG> they were exterminated. This is not an answer.

PB> Those who were immediately killed would not have received
PB> a tattoo unless they had one prior to entering the camp.
PB> Every company, inventories its equipment. Have you ever
PB> been to a government office? Everything has a number tag on
PB> it.

I have been in government offices and they do not make work
for themselves and keeping such records is making work.

PB> In a different sense we still tattoo our workers. You have
PB> a social security number, my business has a Federal Tax
PB> Number, your car has a license tag and a vehicle
PB> Identification number. The Germans were sticklers for
PB> detail. They simply took the concept of attaching numbers
PB> to machinery and office furniture and expanded it to
PB> humans.

And there is a purpose to this “analogy”. The US examples
have a purpose. The Nazi examples have no purpose. If they can
not do the job, they die. It does not matter which person was
interchanged for another.

PB> Many of these folks were highly skilled. You would not
PB> want to lose the head machinist at your slave labor
PB> munitions factory. Think about it, whey do police have
PB> badge numbers? Why does my wife’s company ID card have a
PB> number on it? It is simply how businesses track workers.

How would these workers be lost? It was remaining in that
skilled job that kept them alive? Right? So why would they run
away or hide or whatever? And if you want to talk escape, the
simple lack of papers was sufficient for an arrest and
identifying one’s self as said “highly skilled worker” was the
best chance of continued survival.

As for our police we care who they are in the very long run.
They are not simply disposed of when they fail.

PB> A lot of the people in the camps would work for months and
PB> were exterminated only when they could not do the job. If
PB> they became ill, they might be exterminated. If a new batch
PB> of labor arrived, the old, worn-out workers would be
PB> killed. The tattoo allowed the system to track a prisoner
PB> from when he entered the system, through his time working
PB> at the camp, through his extermination.

Why would they CARE about tracking if the criteria (contrary
to the previous skilled labor explanation) for extermination was
simply unable to do the job? Why would any one care WHICH number
was unable to do the job. Any old number unable to do the job
would do.

PB> MG>PB> You don’t want sick workers, if you can avoid it.

PB> MG> First a brand has less chance of infection it
PB> MG> cauterizes. But then if the purpose is extermination why
PB> MG> bother with when they get sick? The story has it they were
PB> MG> sent to the camps FOR extermination. Why the numbers?

PB> Burns are much more likely to cause infections. That is
PB> why burn patients die so easily. The skin is open to any
PB> number of pathogens.

And that is why cattle die from it all the time. After all,
all the fur in the wound also. Do you have another one for me?
But in any event, I proposed a simple J would have been
sufficient.

PB> The use of number is not anything so unusual. We number
PB> our prisoners at our jails and in our prisons. The only
PB> oddity was the use of a tattoo, instead of a social
PB> security card.

We number our prisoners because we treat them more or less
like human beings and expect to release them back into society.
If the ultimate end of every prison sentence was death, it would
hardly matter.

PB> Matt, my friend, Germany did indeed carry out the
PB> mechanized extermination of humans during the second world
PB> war. Their victims were: Jews, Gentiles, Moslems, Gypsies,
PB> Slavs, Russians, and whomever else offended the Nazis. I
PB> know people who are openly anti-Jewish who were there when
PB> the camps were captured.

So? I am inquiring after the use for tattooes.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Innocense is a pesky technicality in Israel.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950311 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1908)
To: George Noonan 9 Mar 95 05:39:08
Subject: AUSCHWITZ

GN> Shit happens and always will. But by highlighting it we
GN> can teach our kids what is and is not acceptable behavior.
GN> Just that simple.

“Today, children, in case you are so degenerate that you
have not grasped the idea that murder is wrong, were are going to
cover the holocaust so that when you are the dictator of a nation
you will know murdering millions of people is not a nice thing to
do. We will also teach you that unlike Hitler, unless you lose
the war there are people who will defend your doing it as they
did Stalin. And if you are a lucky, like Attila you will be
remembered primarily as a military genius against primitive
Europeans.”

You are saying that if the holocaust have never occurred
people would have the idea that the murder of millions of people
is acceptable. Why if the holocaust had never happened people
would be advocating mass murder of minorities every day. There
would be votes on which minority is next.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Justic, unlike revenge, is best served warm and bleeding.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1909)
To: Lester Garrett 9 Mar 95 05:39:08
Subject: EO AND THE 4TH

LG> MG> Executive Repeal of the 4th Amendment
LG> MG> by
LG> MG> Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <2/25> . . .

LG> MG> **
LG> MG> Continued in the next message…

LG> FYI, no subsequent part(s) received at this end.

And at this point I am giving up trying to trace the problem
myself. I saw in this conference where you posted one of these
and another person had the second part and posted it before I
did. It is obviously a geographic problem that no one else is
interested it. I have cut the message size to 90 lines but they
do not get through either. I have tried different origin boards
and every one I have tried on both sides of the Bay (funnels
through two boards) all parts get through.

Some place beyond here it changes and is different in
different parts of the country. I can not explain it and no one
else appears interested in pursuing the matter.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I come in peace.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1910)
To: George Noonan 9 Mar 95 05:39:08
Subject: ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

GN> GN> MG> enjoys under ideal conditions within its own social group.

GN> GN> The psuedo-science of anthropology

GN> MG> This is the first time I have read that appellation.
GN> MG> Specifically, what problem do you have with the subject —
GN> MG> granted Margaret Mead was a fool but her time has come and gone
GN> MG> and in fact never was in professional circles.

GN> Not just anthropology Matt, but psychology, economics,
GN> sociology and most particularly education. Not that there
GN> is not some good work done in these areas. Nor do I fault
GN> the questions asked and the attempts to answer same. Indeed
GN> at least 50% of economics and 20% of psychology can validly
GN> be called “science.” But to try and claim that jargonese
GN> and pure speculation is a “science” is something else
GN> again. To pass off political correctness and a misuse of
GN> mathematical statistics as science is what deplore.

To repeat the question, what is your problem with
anthropology. I am interested. There is no statistics of
interest used in anthropology so that is not an objection.

GN> GN> finibus bonorum et malorum” written over 2000 years ago to
GN> GN> determine what Nature and Nature’s Creator has in mind for
GN> GN> man.

GN> MG> There is also no need to interject a “creator” for
GN> MG> which there is no evidence of existence. It gets in the
GN> MG> way as the liberals so intent upon circumscribing human
GN> MG> rights when they do not like the consequences (they want
GN> MG> control of results) they

GN> Well such men as Einstein, Fermi and von Neumann – *real*
GN> scientists all – would disagree with you that there is no
GN> evidence of a Creator Matt.

I would be interested in reading the EVIDENCE the wrote
about. Hint: I do have the complete statement of Einstein of
which only one line is commonly used and it is no such thing.
Would you like to post the evidence of the others? EVIDENCE, not
opinion.

However I do agree that the
GN> present “liberal” in the United States at least is an
GN> arrogrant SOB who thinks he has all the answers to all the
GN> problems, and is going to shove those answers down all our
GN> throats whether we like it or not.

You of course are free to post any and all evidence you feel
exists at any time. However you are encouraged to do it on
holysmoke where there are more canned answers available to deal
with the ancient fallacies you are going to post. I can deal
with all of them myself right here if you insist but it will be
time consuming.

You will be required to use commonly accepted scientific
definition of evidence OR post the definition you intend to use.
You may not substitute the OPINION of other people, such as you
tried above with some scientists. Their opinions are not
evidence, that is the fallacy of an appeal to authority and no
different from “thus spake Aristotle.”

And for your information, Einstein’s tenacious and
groundless belief in a particular kind of universe his “god” must
have created meant that he made no significant contribution to
science for the last 40 years of his life as he was completely
wrong about the nature of the universe. Folks like Fermi were
correct.

Von Neuman is nothing special. He just happened to be
around in the beginning of computers and he is hardly what we
would call a scientist, more like an engineer.

But in any event, their opinions are not evidence.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Barney Must Die!
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1911)
To: William Morgan 9 Mar 95 05:39:10
Subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH

WM> MG*> Abolition would require Clinton to sign it.

WM> MG*> Rather petition Gingrich to zero fund the office. Zero
WM> *>funds, zero staff, zero office space, zero uniform budget.

WM> MG*> We have to start cutting costs some place.

WM> -=-=-=-=-=-=
WM> Terrific idea, Matt. Let’s start getting the word to members of the
WM> House!
WM> —

CONG104.ZIP is on the boards as we write.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Nine out of ten Chosen People choose the Torah.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1912)
To: Kara Takahashi 9 Mar 95 05:39:10
Subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH

KT> MG> Rather petition Gingrich to zero fund the office. Zero
KT> MG> funds, zero staff, zero office space, zero uniform budget.

KT> And zero pay.

Of course. It is such an important function even I would
serve in it for free as long as it did not interfere with the day
job and I don’t see how it could.

KT> MG> We have to start cutting costs some place.

KT> Exactly. We just can’t afford to spend money like we used to.

We never could afford to spend money like we used to. That
is how we got into this mess.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Beware the low profit.” Giwer 1:1
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1913)
To: All 9 Mar 95 05:39:12
Subject: THE TOMB 01

The Tomb

Matt Giwer

Another in the continuing tales from the Bible as they
really happened.

=====

Mother of James: Mary, who is going to move that huge stone
for us.

Mary: Didn’t think of that. All these spices, all this
anointing … I don’t know where my head was.

Salome: Fear not for I have brought silver and gold with
which to bribe the guards at the tomb.

MOJ & Mary: Guards!

Salome: Know ye not there are guards on the tomb?

MOJ: No one told me about this. I’m going back. I’m not
going to get stuck by any bloody Roman.

Mary: Patience, Mother of James. Salome, what kind of
guards are these.

Salome: Very fierce, the finest in the world. They are
charged with guarding the preventing the theft of your son’s body
under pain of death. They will kill anyone approaching his tomb.

MOJ: That’s enough for me. Anointing isn’t all that much
fun any way. It certainly isn’t worth being skewered by a Roman,
with a weapon, well, that kind of weapon, at least not for free.

Mary: Take heart, nameless Mother of James, perhaps Salome
has the answer. Salome, do you think you have brought enough
gold and silver?

Salome: According to Temple Merchants Street Journal the
going rate for stone rolling is 3 1/2 silver pieces bid 3 5/8
silver pieces asked. Dereliction of duty is a flat 1 5/8 bid and
asked. The futures market on both was the same for 90 day
delivery. The flat market is attributed to a surplus of soldiers
in the Jerusalem market as a show of force against an uprising
predicted by a consensus of the Roman Revolution Analysts. And
they have not been wrong in fifty five years.

MOJ: Damn! That means my dereliction contracts are
worthless. I have to get to my broker.

Mary: Mother, were are here for some good old fashioned
anointing, not to worry about money. We will be back before the
market opens in any event.

MOJ: I don’t like it.

Mary: You don’t have to like it. If we turn back now we
have no part in the most dramatic part of the New Testament.
Where would Moses be if he worried about brass serpent futures
instead of mountain climbing?

MOJ: All right, all right. Lets go get this over with.

Narrator: And they arrived and they looked up, well down,
actually sort of straight ahead, and beheld the stone had been
moved and the fierce Roman Guard was no where to be seen.

MOJ: Fine, someone got here first. Now lets get back.

Mary: Peace, nameless Mother, we must venture into the
tomb.

MOJ: Why’s that?

Mary: He was my kid, not yours. This is the way to get
into the book. Do what I tell you or I will have the scribe
strike you from the story.

Scribe: She has such a heavy accent I’ve missed most of
what she said anyway.

MOJ: I’ll go and you, scribe, don’t forget I paid part of
your fee and I get to review your scribings before you turn them
over to the evangelists.

Scribe: (muttering) everyone’s a bloody censor

MOJ: What was that?!

Mary: Never mind him. Let us go forward into the tomb.

MOJ: Ohhhhh, what a lovely tomb. Shows you what those rich
bastards can afford. Mine’s not have this size and you have to
duck down to get in. I’m having it enlarged next month for a
nice two level effect and hinges on the stone so I can be
anointed every day.

Mary: Ditzy blond. Behold, he is here no longer, he has
risen as he has foretold.

MOJ: He’s gone anyway. And after that nice man let him use
it. Ungrateful I say.

Mary: And let this be a lesson to you from the rich man,
that which is sold is gone forever. That which is rented brings
wealth eternal.

MOJ: I knew that. I was just testing you.

Mary: Enough, we must learn more before we return with the
news he is risen.

Salome: Why do you say he is risen rather than his body
simply stolen?

MOJ: My son would never steal anyone’s body. Goes against
his principles.

Salome: Have you not been following the apostle market? It
has dropped a lot since it started. Back then an apostle slot
cost even the rich man all he had. Last week it was down to two
months wages and, as you know, the bottom fell out of the market
on Friday. Your son’s position is in a buyer’s market and there
is no market. This morning edition called it Black Friday for
the market.

Mary: My son has arisen …

Narrator: MOJ screams

Mary: What did you see? A Roman soldier?
**
Continued in the next message…
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1914)
To: Forrest Lamont 9 Mar 95 05:39:12
Subject: TYRANNY ???

FL> MG> Now let us consider a law that is passed 51 to 49. Is
FL> MG> there any rationale for saying the 49 are wrong? I have
FL> MG> raised this point regarding Supreme Court decisions. In
FL> MG> fact, if a person did something that four of the nine best
FL> MG> legal minds in the country agreed with, he still goes to
FL> MG> jail. In this regard, when 49 of the best legislative
FL> MG> minds in the country (theory again) hold that something is
FL> MG> wrong, why should it become law?

FL> For the very pragmatic reason that there must exist some
FL> number which when reached in agreement on an issue ends the
FL> debate and enables the decision.
FL>
FL> You argue that the majority is irrelevent, yet if that be
FL> so how can those in the minority maintain any relevence?
FL> Your playing around perilously close to the the unstable
FL> edge of the ‘existentialist pit’.

I have simply proposed, if you will read the rest of it,
that something greater than a simple majority should be required
for the passage of any law. And if so many laws are not passed?
That is a fine idea.

FL> The one-man equal relevency platform from which you take
FL> your stand is truly an ideal situation. Except for the fact
FL> that it is ONLY feasible in a one-man universe. Platos’
FL> ‘Republic’ is nearly flawless until you are faced with who
FL> is to be the first philosopher king.
FL>
FL> (Me, of course, you made yourself irrelevant, and Lester
FL> didn’t speak up fast enough. heheheheh)

He he does not win by a 60% majority there is not enough
agreement as to his worthiness for the office.

FL> When what you advocate here is applied to a universe
FL> populated with more than just yourself, you are faced with
FL> the very real example of true anarchy. Each is the law unto
FL> themselves.

Now where did I say that? I posted quite clearly that there
would be no problem in passing laws against murder and theft even
with some form of super majority requirement. Everyone agrees
with those kinds of laws. 10% might not but then so what? Even
in the “some are more equal than others” extension of murder give
some elected and appointed official greater protections than
anyone else that passed by something like 90% of each house.

FL> Your making a fundamental error in your reasoning and it
FL> stems directly from your perception of what is a democracy.
FL> A democracy is simply this and nothing more: a right to
FL> -vote-. NOT a right to reject nor pick and choose, nor a
FL> right to -win-, merely the act of voting.

A democracy is defined as any system in which the vote is
used. When you look at the variations around the world that is
the only thing you can say they have in common, from one party to
two party to multiple party democracies. And the variations on
that are such that, if I understand the Australian system
correctly, if none of the candidates receives a majority then
first do a recount and then a run off election but in each case
the person with the most votes can not win.

I am simply suggesting that something like 60% should be
required to pass any law, perhaps even higher.

To look at it another way, every law should be so clearly
understandable and patently a just law that it would be recognized
by most of the people.

As I see much of the problem with the government regulating
everything in sight is that in so many cases 40+% of the
legislators and the people do not see the laws as needed or just.

FL> MG> Is this not the “democracy” the “tyranny of the majority”
FL> MG> we are supposed to be protected from? If we agree with 49%
FL> MG> of the best legislative minds in the country then why
FL> MG> should be bound by a simple majority?

FL> Are those 49% flawless in their opinions? Is it just the
FL> 51% who flip-flop in their correctness of judgement? You
FL> ascribe certain qualities to one sub-set but not the other.
FL> You fail to recognize or accept that they are all a part of
FL> the set human; which is notorious for its ability to err.

The 49% are exactly as flawless as the 51% which is also the
point. A couple flakes on either side of a vote would make it
the wrong decision. That is why I suggest the majority required
should be more than the expected “flake” content of any
legislature. 60% or 61% should deal with that quite well.

And do not forget, even though we have somewhat more local
flakes than national level flakes, the size of our city councils
is usually such that a simple majority is really in the range of
3/5ths or 4/7ths or some such. The original US Senate required a
7/13ths majority to pass anything as that was what it took to get
over half. That would be 54% in today’s terms. And when you
consider the House was originally about the same size as the
Senate, its current bloated size means a .057% percentage
majority can pass a bill, such as the 1993 tax increase.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Middle Class must be destroyed to save it.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1915)
To: Dave Harris 9 Mar 95 05:39:14
Subject: WACO JUSTICE

DH> MG> 682 days after Waco
DH> MG> The murders are still free.

DH> Matt, I’m sure you’re even more concerned about the
DH> millions murdered in the Holocaust, you just forgot to
DH> mention it. Right?

After we hold the equivalent of the Nuremburg Trials for
those who committed the crimes at Waco I will be more than happy
to drop the matter. But the real Nuremberg trials were held.
The guilty have been punished, it is over, it is history.

®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 – (1956)
To: Peter Bradie 9 Mar 95 20:26:34
Subject: AUSCHWITZ

PB> The function of history is to learn where we’ve been, and
PB> by knowing the path by which we have arrived, see where we
PB> may be going.
PB>
PB> Dismissing history as irrelevant is idiocy.

History has no purpose.

History is as chaotic as the future.

Neither the past nor the future has a purpose or a use for
that matter.

Seeing anything else is self delusional.

®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 – (1957)
To: Stephen Frazier 9 Mar 95 20:26:34
Subject: BABBLING BILL CLINTON

SF> Nope. I’m talking about those laws enacted to take from the
SF> successful and give to the moochers. Even if you consider
SF> tobbaco subsidies as ‘ welfare’, they at least benefit a
SF> segment of the population that in turn contributes to the
SF> economy. Honorable mention: The NEA, Planned Parenthood,
SF> PBS, Prediential libraries, and pork barrel projects in
SF> each and every district, in every state including North
SF> Carolina.

SF> Not at all like the welfare programs that give to those who
SF> *never* give anything back.
SF>
SF> <snicker>
SF>
SF> I call your <snicker>, raise you one <Snicker>

You failed to note the great value of Planned Parenthood.
It practices eugenics upon the poor and the minorities. It is
helping to improve the race. Many of the long dead would be
proud.

®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 – (1958)
To: Stephen Frazier 9 Mar 95 20:26:38
Subject: BALANCED BUDGET FIASCO

and Other Discretionary <A blanket term used to
SF> describe most of the constitutionally mandated functions of
SF> the fed, i.e. roads, bridges, public health,
SF> transportation, NASA, energy, etc> 266)

Which of these did USA Today fantasize as being
constitutionally mandated functions? None of them are so far as
my reading of the constitution goes. The only roads PERMITTED
are those to move the mail, presumably some bridges would fall
under that. None of the rest are.

And of course defense is constitutionally authorized so it
should be included 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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1959)
To: Dan Knapp 9 Mar 95 20:26:38
Subject: DRUGS.

DK> If we want to stop drugs how about getting away from all
DK> money and use a credit card type system.

It is unlikely anyone but those forcing it on the rest would
put up with such a system. Bartering would come back rather
quickly. As for the commodity, gold, silver and diamonds would
work fine and their value would at least triple in the process.
Beyond that there are always other items of value floating around
in society. It might even make all those worthless platinum
futures worth money.

A Pentium chip is worth four street ounces of coke although
with this as the commodity the street value would drop rather
than rise.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * One Finger is all a real American needs.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1960)
To: All 9 Mar 95 20:26:38
Subject: IDENTIFY CHILD MOLESTERS

Is there a child molester living in your neighborhood? Here
is how to find out.

Go to your local school and trap a kid. Take the kid home
and stake it out in your front yard around dusk. Watch patiently
through the window or in a molester blind and soon a molester
will show up. At that point you can photograph it or bag it as
is your taste.

The kid may then be turned loose back in its natural
environment the next morning.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Satan did not fall. He was pushed.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1961)
To: All 9 Mar 95 20:26:38
Subject: LAW RE: WACO

Federal and State Law
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/5>

After nearly two years of discussing Waco I find
misconceptions about the law and the federal and state
relationships between laws to be unbelievably common. At the
risk of inciting the corrective ire of our resident attorneys I
am going to try to lay out the basic, simplest principles that
relate to this subject.
But first the is an even more obvious point that many appear
to have completely wrong. Rather than trying to describe the
wrong point of view let me give the correct point of view. If
there is no law, there is nothing to enforce, there is nothing
for a law enforcement officer to do.
I really can not find a way to paraphrase that to make it
simpler. If something is not codified in law there is nothing
any law enforcement person or agency can do. And by extension
there is nothing the executive branch at any level can do,
period.
Specific to Waco, this means that if there was not an
identified law against something the Branch Davidians were doing
then violating a non-law was not justification for the attack
upon them.
Back to the top level discussion. There are federal laws
and there are state laws. Only federal agencies can enforce
federal laws and only state agencies can enforce state laws.
Federal agencies can not enforce state laws and state agencies
can not enforce federal laws.
It is very clear in the Waco case that neither the BATF nor
the FBI had any authority to deal with any violation of any
aspect of any Texas law.
The next point is that specific agencies are charged with
the enforcement of specific laws. The BATF can not deal with
immigration violations, the FBI can not deal with alcohol law
violations and the BATF can not deal with kidnapping. The point
is that when you hear of a “powerful multi-agency federal task
force” what is means is that they had to form a committee because
federal law enforcement is so bureaucratized. I will leave it up
to the reader to reconcile “powerful multi-agency” and
“committee.”
This is not to say there are not the inter-agency equivalent
of the state and local “hot pursuit” agreements. One agency
inadvertently discovering a crime over which they do not have
jurisdiction can hold the person or persons until an officer from
the proper agency shows up to make the arrest. This is general
between federal, state and local agencies.
But in these cases it is only a hold for an arrest by the
appropriate bureaucrat not for any other purpose. Obviously the
DEA is not going to say, “I thought you were smuggling drugs not
alcohol, off you go.” The person is going to be held for the
BATF officer to show up and arrest.
This is not to suggest agencies are limited to the items
mentioned in their names. It was interesting to find the BATF
that started the entire mess in Waco was displaced by the FBI
because the FBI was in charge when federal agents are killed in
the course of duty, only to find the BATF was in charge after the
fire because they are charged with investigating fires related to
federal crimes. It was also interesting to see the opportunity
for a “you cover my ass, I’ll cover yours” situation develop.
And as in the beginning not one of these agencies or even an
inter-agency committee can do anything unless it is with regard
to some specific law that is on the books. Now I grant there are
laws on the books to cover just about anything one can imagine
but specific to the Waco case there are some seriously false
assumptions being made.
For example, the assumption that the BATF took action
because of the large number of guns. False. There is no federal
law regarding the number of guns any person or group can own and
therefore the BATF had no power to do anything.
The assumption that the BATF took action because of the
large amount of ammunition. False. There is no federal law
regarding the amount of ammunition a person or group can own
therefore the BATF had no power to do anything.
The assumption that the BATF took action because of child
abuse and/or polygamy. False. There are no federal laws on
these matter thus the BATF has no power to do anything.
The assumption the BATF took action because Koresh was
preaching the end times. False. There is no law against such
preaching and therefore the BATF had no power to act.
The (false) assumption that a combination of the above
constituted a plan for the violent overthrown of the United
States and therefore the BATF acted. False. There are such laws
but the FBI, not the BATF, is charged with enforcing those laws.
The BATF was there for one and only one purpose, a (false)
suspicion that there were unregistered weapons or devices being
manufactured on the premises. I state this is false as the only
justification for even being on the Branch Davidian property was
contained in the search warrant. The search warrant contains no
serious or credible suspicion of any such weapon or device.
And one more point regarding this last paragraph, it is also
true that only what is contained in a search warrant is
justification and then only when it refers to a suspected
violation of a law, in this case a federal law. A search warrant
is not a fishing license and that it be specific is a
federal constitutional requirement and that governs federal
warrants. (State constitutions govern state warrants and when in
compliance with USSC findings.)
I doubt this will slow down those who do not understand this
aspect of the law. I doubt they will even read this past the
point where they find their particular false assumption. But it
is something that needed to be written up.
Thank you for your time.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

®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 – (1962)
To: Darren Garrison 9 Mar 95 20:26:40
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

DG> Nope. Missed that part. :-(. Dan thinks that the
DG> Holocoust never happened at all. It was all a big Jewish
DG> conspiricy (and so was his getting kicked off of the
DG> Internet). ___

I almost forgot, are people who post that the belief the sun
rising in the east is a conspiracy kicked off? Are those who
post Bilderberger and Tri-lateral conspiracies kicked off? Is
there any other conspiracy theorist that has been kicked off? I
am quite familiar with the internet. I am even personally
acquainted with the people who started it — the ones in charge.
I know of no rule that only this one claim is cause for being
kicked off.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Even Eternal Truth doesn’t last forever.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1963)
To: Mark David 9 Mar 95 20:26:42
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

MD> MG>GK> JC> Actually, Matt claims that Jews were never gassed.

MD> MG>GK> They were actually nice little holiday camps. 😉

MD> MG> Actually too many people need to call 1-800-ABCDEFG to learn
MD> MG>to comprehend what I have said.

MD> I’m confused, here, Matt. I do recall the essay you posted
MD> disproving the popular idea that gassing was a major tool
MD> in the camps. I do not recall you trying to prove anything
MD> else in regards to the camps aside from what I remember.

MD> But everyone who has posted here in regards to this subject
MD> has held that you have proposed that the camps never
MD> existed. I’m confused because I can see no reason why you
MD> would be kicked off anything for what I remember of your
MD> arguments.

As I said, people need to call the 800 number I have posted.
And you would be surprised (perhaps not) just how many places I
have been kicked off of because I discuss the subject.

But as to understanding what is going on, look at the two
comments. As you remember all I pointed out is that the
descriptions of gassing are not consistent with what we know
about the effects of that gas. And you note above someone goes
from that to saying I said they were never gassed.

The only way I can explain it is that the story is dogma and
that not one word of it can be questioned. There was a similar
phenomenon that lasted for centuries. Question that St. Jerome
might not have actually turned left on his way out of town and
you could be burned for denying the Christian religion.

Consider that several times I have posted that the most
likely explanation is that the stories were exaggerated in the
retelling just like so many other stories. That suggestion has
never gotten a response. I have even tried connecting the
possibility of exaggeration with the present official estimate of
3.1 million vice 6 million from that university in Tel Aviv and
still no response. But I will guarantee you, were I to post the
new and lower estimate without attributing the source it would be
one more “evil” revisionist thing I said.

Other than the entire story being religious dogma with all
of its conflicting stories, just like conflicting stories in the
bible, I have no explanation. Other than illiteracy that is.

®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 – (1964)
To: Linda Terrell 9 Mar 95 20:26:44
Subject: PARASITES

LT> IN the case of a human fetus, it *takes* nourishment
LT> from the mother, sometimes at detriment to the mother,
LT> especially depleting her calcium reserves. It returns
LT> nothing but its wastes.
LT>
LT> That is *parasitical*

Only in the colloquial sense. Not in the scientific sense.

Illiterate opinions to the contrary.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Child abuse experts do not reproduce.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1965)
To: All 9 Mar 95 20:26:44
Subject: PARNIODS PLEASE READ

Paranoids Among Us
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/8>

This is more directed towards you paranoids than about you
so I hope you will be paying attention. Specifically you are
giving whatever you touch a bad name. You may be right but keep
it down.
I suggest is that you read all the Tom Clancy books before
you consider jumping off on your next “issue.” Look to the
obvious before you look the mysterious. Look to fact before you
look to fancy.
For example, the most recent paranoia was that the strip in
money was so the government could use microwaves to find out how
much cash you have. That is strange, mysterious, even has a
touch of Buck Rogers in it — or am I showing my age using Buck
Rogers. Why would that bother you?
Fact: if you are a multimillionaire and your wife spends a
lot of hundred dollar bills the government has “reasonable
suspicion” that you are in the drug business. As with the Scott
case, you can be murdered for that “reasonable suspicion.” In
our gender neutral society I presume this applies to husbands
with multimillionaire wives also but it has not come to a test
yet.
Fact: The government is moving to get $100 and $50 bills
out of circulation. If you have a large amount in cash, hiding
it will take five times more volume with $20s. This is gradual.
They are not being pulled from circulation, they are simply not
being replaced as they wear out. They do not get much wear so
this is taking some time. There is no hurry on this one.
Fact: The mere possession of a large amount of cash means
it can be confiscated (forfeited) under the presumption that only
drug dealers have large amounts of cash. You have to prove the
inanimate money, not yourself, is innocent to get it back.
So, what does it matter if the government can use microwaves
to count your cash? The government is removing your ability to
conveniently hold large amounts of cash. And in the interim your
cash can simply be taken or you can be killed simply for having
it. I will grant that a microwave search would make the theft
and murder more efficient. Paranoia about microwaves detracts
from the real concern that the government has the power to steal
and kill at will simply over the possession of cash.
How about the currently popular microchip belief? Back to
Buck Rogers with an Intel twist, throw in satellites and they can
find you any where and know all about you on some super computer
some place.
Fact: Cray’s latest is not up to the job.
Fact: Your credit card, ATM card, and SSN are on files every
place.
Fact: An experienced investigator knows which records to
demand / subpoena in an instant and can have them in a couple days
if not hours.
So the only way to avoid instant tracking rather than a
couple days of tracking is to go completely on cash. But as
enough cash to live on can be confiscated you can not do that.
And in trying to do so you risk being murdered for it. Granted
if you manage your affairs just right you can live completely on
cash but that expertise and those job skills are not all that
common.
How about the huge covert organization the government
controls from the garbage man down to UPS employees?
Fact: Every government agent in any department has an
obligation of referral of an item to the correct agency.
Fact: There are, counting the US Post Office, more people
employed by the government than there are employed in
manufacturing.
Fact: State and local law agencies are similarly obligated
to report upwards to the federal government.
And with all of this why would the government need to pay a
dime to support a separate covert information gathering
organization? For it to be more effective than what it already
has would have to be so big that half the country would have to
be spying upon the other half. And most of that would be wasted
in that the government already has the best sources of
information in hand.
There is nothing the wildest paranoia can imagine that is
more complex and more in line with what is happening. You have
hidden concentration camps? I have organized murder. You have
black helicopters? I have an FBI Rapid Deployment Force. You
have Russian tanks in the US? I have the FBI in Moscow working
with the KGB.
You have imagination, I have the evening news.
Paranoia, like fiction, has to make sense. Reality does
not. Reality is stranger than paranoia. Reality does not have
to make sense.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming! Everyone look busy.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1966)
To: All 9 Mar 95 20:26:46
Subject: PBS AND THE 1ST

1st, Religion, and PBS
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/9>

There is currently a “discussion,” rather a sanctimonious
debate occurring as to whether or not the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting and it subsidiaries, the TV Public Broadcasting
System and National Public Radio should continue to receive money
from the federal government. Radio and TV media are clearly held
by the Supreme Court to fall under the 1st amendment provision of
freedom of the press. Fine with me. Let us look at the first
amendment.

1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for
a redress of grievances.

If I read this correctly we have five distinctly different
areas of prohibition against Congress from making laws. Those
are religion, speech, press, assembly and petition. I can read
it differently with different emphasis upon semicolons and commas
but I do not think any of us are in agreement as to these five I
have named are a reasonable break-out.
IF we are to assume, for the sake of argument of course,
that these were all put into one amendment and duly ratified, for
the purpose of having them all treated in the same manner then we
have a point to begin a moderately pleasant discussion. Let us
begin to be moderately pleasant.
Now we all agree that in english, as observed by Mark Twain,
that its users would rather use the wrong word than the correct
word twice in the same sentence. This rule applies to the 1st
amendment. That is something english speakers appear to be born
with. It is not rational, it is english. Perhaps a trait we
inherited from the British.
But never mind. Let us take an overview of this. Solely
because Thomas Jefferson wrote in a private letter to a friend
that his opinion was that the 1st created a “wall of separation”
between church and state we have a Supreme Court mandated wall of
separation. Fine with me. Who am I to note Jefferson was not
involved in the drafting of the 1st amendment?
Moving right along, the right of lobbying and lobbyists is
protected under this clause as in the right to petition
government for the redress of grievances. The best we appear to
be able to prohibit constitutionally is the right to bribe
government for the redress of grievances. We clearly prohibit the
government from petitioning itself, government paid for lobbying,
in that a government agency can not hire a lobbyist to promote in
Congress what that government agency wants.
We have some momentum here so lets keep going. Within the
uniform application of public order and safety people can
assemble any place and time they wish and the only questions are
in regard to public demonstrations. Certainly the government
paying to organize a public demonstration would be shot down as
quickly as those who refused to participate in a spontaneous
demonstration in the old USSR would have been.
Freedom of speech is so revered and protected a bullwhip up
a man’s anus is protected but … hold it. I have a problem
here. Where is this wall of separation?
Let us review the bidding. The rational people who put
these five protections into one amendment did so for a reason.
That reason does not appear to have been to save paper but rather
that they were to be treated the same, that they were all in the
same general category of protections. I guess I am missing why
difference clauses of the same sentence in the same amendment are
given different treatment. Perhaps it is just me.
I simply do not see why a government sponsored religion, a
government newspaper, a government lobbyist, a government public
spokesman is prohibited when government established art, radio
and TV is acceptable. The person fluent in the english language
would assume all variants in each clause (under the Twain rule)
would apply to all the other clauses. If supporting art or TV or
radio is acceptable then so is supporting a government religion.
If supporting a religion is not acceptable then neither is
supporting art or TV or radio.
Perhaps I am missing something in noting it is all the same
amendment. How can I come to understand that different criteria
apply to different clauses in the same sentence? I doubt anyone
can help me over this sticking point. I do not see how I can
have government established radio and TV networks and not have a
government established religion.
This rancorous name calling is all over a rather trivial
issue, a government established and subsidized “press” is no more
approved by the 1st than is a government established and
subsidized religion. They are all equally prohibited. The US
equivalent of Pravda is unthinkable. The US equivalent of BBC
Channel 1 is for some reason acceptable. Not in any reading the
US Constitution I have done. But then, I am not a constitutional
attorney. I do not know how to make five little rabbits out of
one big rabbit.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

®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 – (1967)
To: Ryan Fox 9 Mar 95 20:26:48
Subject: UN PEACEKEEPING

RF> Hi, I’m Ryan Fox.

No you’re not. I can tell by the FROM: line.

On the weekend of March 18 I am going to the Alberta
RF> Provincial Debate. I am currently ranked third speaker in
RF> the Clagary region, and my team is ranked third as well.
RF> The topic of debate is be it resolved that Canada adopt a
RF> new policy with regards to its role in UN peacekeeping. Any
RF> information or opinions anyone may have on this or related
RF> topic would be greatly appreciated. If info is given the
RF> source must be supplied for it to be valid. The source
RF> includes the name and date of the publication or the name
RF> and credentials of the person who gave the info.

Sure,

Canada as UN Cannon Fodder

The UN respects Canadian Soldiers more than Canada

For sources, try the world news.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Though I walk thru the valley, I am the meanest SOB.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950312 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2041)
To: All 10 Mar 95 12:57:50
Subject: BUY THE UNIONS

Billie Jeff sucks Hillary’s Cucumber

On 8 March 1995 BJ signed an Executive Order in favor of the
unions.

He can not be going after union member votes as they are
only 12% of the working population and they have been voting
conservative since Reagan.

The only explanation for this is that the union leadership,
undemocratically entrenched in power, gives out the political
action money. With this “bold” stroke BJ gets $20+ million in
campaign support for 1996.

Who gives a rat’s ass. It is only Slick Willie.

®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_950313 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1636)
To: All 11 Mar 95 06:35:24
Subject: AUSCHWITZ

TP> > How about the 31 million civilians that were simply
TP> > unaccounted for after the war? As for the “to say nothing”
TP> > there were 6 million Christians. It was perhaps up there
TP> > but in no manner was it outstanding in recent history save
TP> > for the publicists.

TP> Tell me, Matt; in your determination to deny the Holocaust
~~~~

And as another example of the knee-jerk response to
discussing the subject without the proper reverence, you
deliberately and willfully mischaracterize (read, lie) about what
I wrote and you quoted. See how it goes? And honest people keep
asking me what else I am saying for people to claim I “deny” the
holocaust because they can not find it in what I write. Of
course, those are honest people unlike yourself.

TP> (and to further discount its horror) have you any
TP> statistics on how many members of other groups died as
TP> subject in “medical” experiments? While there have been
TP> many massacres of groups of people, even in our lifetimes,
TP> and certainly in this century, please tell me how many died
TP> of callously and intentionally inflicted wounds and
TP> diseases.

Do you have statistics on how many Jews did? You are the
first to imply only Jews were used. Would you care to provide
the supporting data? Where did you get the idea it was only
Jews?

And are we to assume also that Jews had diseases that were
left untreated and early on Jewish women were sterilized? And
what did we learn from that? Should we have a would be Dr.
Mengele as Surgeon General? Obviously we learned nothing nor
will people who whine and moan about it bring it up when it
conflicts with their politics.

If it were not for their politics they would give their
ritual curses to socialism as the root of National Socialism.
That will not be done. It is too politically beneficial to
pretend otherwise.

TP> > SL> Freedom of speech does not and should not include
TP> > SL> outrageous lies. Freedom of speech only applies to
TP> > SL> beliefs, not revisionist and bigoted thought.

TP> > It does apply. Eat it.

TP> You’re right, Matt. Freedom of speech *does* apply, even in
TP> the case of your racist comments against Mr. Ku, and your

And you can eat that too.

TP> bigotry shown in the case of the Holocaust.

And you have the freedom to lie and provide the evidence you
are lying just as you did above in this very message.

I would fight
TP> to allow you to keep up speaking as you do. See, in this
TP> age, people tend to think your kind of bigotry has died
TP> out. I want to make sure others know that people like you
TP> still exist, so that the revulsion that decent folks have
TP> when faced with apologists for inhuman assholes doesn’t
TP> diminish.

As do I want you to keep posting so people can see how
freely your kind lies when they have no rational position to
support. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. You
should have taken Roger Armstrong’s advice more seriously.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Televangelists. The pro wrestlers of religion.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1637)
To: All 11 Mar 95 06:35:24
Subject: DANGEROUS NEW DISEASE

TANSTAAFL except for Liberals
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/10>

It is a sad comment upon the state of education in this
country when everyone from Congressrats to school teachers show
they could not pass a simple 4th grade arithmetic test. Here is
the test.

Mohammedette (a PC test) has forty apples. She is given
four and one half percent more apples. Does she have
a) An increase
b) A cut
c) no apples at all

I know, that telegraph the punch line. First off you have
to understand that a) is the only completely wrong answer. Now
liberal Congressrats and teachers and of course the media ravens
are hotly debating whether the correct answer is b) or c).
One school in Louisiana (that state being the only state
with lower school achievement than Arkansas) is firmly convinced
the answer is c) and is teaching that to the children. I hope no
one is surprised by the school achievement in that state given
this being taught as true. Where do they get such stupid
teachers? Where I charged to hire such stupid people I could
guarantee results.
To his credit, and I am certain in what was in burst of
insight after a long struggle, President Clinton realized that
Mohammedette would at least have some apples left so he said the
correct answer was b). Of course his is from the second worst
educated state in the country so we should give him as many
pleads as possible for getting that close to the correct
answer. It may encourage him to study hard and learn and perhaps
do better next time.
His fellow Democrats on Congress do agree with him that b)
is the correct answer. But what excuse do they have? They come
from states with better educational standards than Arkansas. So
what excuses their obvious inability to grasp basic arithmetic.
I will grant the only group that gave them a majority was the
group that did not finish high school. But still this is a
fundamental concept not limited to arithmetic.
It is one of those very fundamental concepts one uses to
test the development of two and three year olds, whether or not
they can distinguish between less and more. Children who are not
able to grasp such concepts are considered to some degree
retarded. An adult that can not grasp that distinction is either
considered retarded or to have some other mental problem.
Thus we find the Democrats in Congress are either retarded
or perhaps suffering from some degenerative brain dysfunction or
perhaps they have suffered a serious head injury. It is quite
surprising to find so many of them with the identical problem all
the in the same place and in fact in the same party.
So I propose this. That the Center for Disease Control
immediately be assigned the job of determining the cause. This
could be some new contagious disease. It could escape the
limited circles of liberals and into the healthy population at
any moment. Liberals have been known to consort and even mate,
consider the Maitlan — Carvell marriage. If it is contagious
Maitlan is certainly at great risk not to mention the general
population.
I can not adequately express the seriousness of the danger
of this disease. Drivers with it will be speeding up believing
they are slowing down. Investors will be throwing themselves out
of windows when they make a fortune in the stock market. There
are other consequences too horrible to contemplate and certainly
not suitable for publication where children might read.
We are all at risk of losing our ability at basic reasoning
as have so many liberals. Should this be contagious we are all
lost. I can not imagine these people were all born retarded. If
so it is hard to understand how they could have gotten to their
positions in life.
And above all a cure must be found. More is more and less
is less. We can not have people actually believing that more is
less. As I have shown above it is very dangerous to permit them
loose in society. It is only a matter of time before they hurt
themselves and others. For their own good we much restrain them.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Jesus is coming! Everybody preach something.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1638)
To: Ed Blount 11 Mar 95 06:35:26
Subject: WACO JUSTICE

EB> And thusly, Matt Giwer spake:
EB> MG>682 days after Waco
EB> MG>The murders are still free.

EB> And to think of all those people who paid hit men to off
EB> someone… they must be kicking themselves to find that
EB> murders are free. ;->

689 days after Waco
The murders are still free.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * And I’ll be Beetoven.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950314 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1635)
To: All 12 Mar 95 03:38:08
Subject: A SOCIALIST IS A MARXIST

Socialism is Fascism
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/10>

I know the assertion in the title upsets liberals in that
they know they are closet socialists and do not like hearing the
truth. I have read their objections and now I am going to do a
more complete treatment of this subject.
There is no question that both Mussolini and Hitler
considered themselves practical Marxists. There exist sufficient
quotations from their own words and writings to support that
contention. Where they differed from Marx, and as we know there
are as many ways to implement Marxism as there are failures of
it, was that they openly admitted that Marxism could not be
imposed with any pretension democracy. Thus they were
unapologetic dictators.
And it is clear that people are not Marxists at heart. It
is not in human nature to live equally with all others without
competition. All socialists and US liberals agree that social
differences much be minimized. As with the present opening
volley on affirmative action, they are supporting equality of
results.
The only way US liberals differ is that they are still not
freely admitting that it is only by force that social differences
can be minimized. What they hide behind is what they can not get
democratically they will accept by judicial fiat that is
undemocratic. But in any event, they like Mussolini and Hitler
fully understand that they must use the force of government to
attain their ideals.
The primary means of refusing to admit Socialism in Fascism
is to point out that Fascists were dictators. But as just
discussed they fully accept the use of democratic and
undemocratic force to attain their ideals. What they focus on is
the lack of democracy in Italy and Germany in those days while
ignoring the use of force to impose social ideals.
It is clearly the tyranny of democracy that was one of the
principles guiding the creation of the US Constitution. Not only
was it created as a republican form of government, it was given
strictly limited powers so that a simple majority could not
impose force upon a minority. And, as is clear from reading the
US Constitution, all forms of federal social laws are clearly not
powers granted to the federal government, that is, they are all
unconstitutional, regardless of Supreme Court findings.
A side note here, the US Supreme Court was not granted the
power in the Constitution to find laws unconstitutional. Nor was
it granted any power to initiate judicial remedies. Its only
power is judge the cases brought before it.
This refusal of liberals to focus on the use of government
force and instead focus upon the democratic, but at best
extra-constitutional, use of force to impose their ideals, is
only a diversion. They do support the use of the coercive power
of the government to force people to behave as they wish. In
this manner, they are promoting the idea that the government
should have unlimited powers just as did those two unashamed
dictators.
The next obfuscation is to claim socialism is not a form of
Marxism. The best they can do to support this claim is to point
to some obscure social thinkers while ignoring where they got
their ideas. But even granted that, the socialists early this
century gave no signs of having ever heard of these obscure
writers either.
When you look at the composition of the socialist groups and
the near socialist groups you find them littered with members who
freely quoted the writings of Karl Marx. In other countries
those openly calling themselves socialists and talking Marx met
with varying degrees of success. Often, as in England, they had
to call themselves the Labour Party or some such to avoid the
Marxist identification.
In the US, the parties with socialist in their names did not
get very far. What happen in the Democrat Party, which today has
lead to the “liberal” philosophy, is that they merely spoke of
principles without ever mentioning their origins. This is
demonstrated today in that liberals can only deal with emotion
and can not rationally support their positions. That is because
they have cut themselves off from their intellectual roots in
Marxism.
When asked why it is good to tax the rich and give to the
poor they reply with emotion not reason. Either a heart rending
appeal on the condition of the poor or an accusation the
questioner is heartless. Had they not abandoned their Marxist
roots they could simply point to their presumption that the
industrial world is headed toward a classless society and that
their policies are simply a result of social forces much as those
supporting free enterprise point to equally undefinable market
forces.
But lacking intellectual roots they have only emotion to
use. That a country should be operated based upon emotion rather
than reason is not a position even liberals will openly support
although they will continue to use only emotional justifications.
It is not only understandable, it is easily explainable.
But note there is not one idea liberals or admitted
socialists promote that can not be traced back to Marxism. Nor
is there one social idea of Mussolini and Hitler they did not
admit came from Marxism. The only difference is in the admission
or denial that force in necessary to impose their ideas.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * One finger is all a real American needs.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1636)
To: Frank Palmer 12 Mar 95 03:38:10
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

FP> MG> But I would like you to explain to me just how people can
FP> MG> scream for a half hour (I have reputable sources for this claim)

FP> Which?

The internet Holocaust FAQ

Archive-name: holocaust/auschwitz/part01
Last-modified: 1993/03/26

Auschwitz: A Layman’s Guide to Auschwitz-Birkenau

1.0 Introduction & Editorial Notes……………………….. 1
1.1 Copyright Notice………………………………….. 2
1.2 Geographic Description…………………………….. 2
2.0 Gas Chambers……………………………………….. 2
2.1 Krema I………………………………………….. 3
2.2 Krema II, III, IV, and V…………………………… 4
2.3 Zyklon B…………………………………………. 5
3.0 Crematoria…………………………………………. 9
4.0 Compiling the estmates on numbers exterminated………….10
4.1 How many people died at Auschwitz?…………………..11
5.0 Administration………………………..[See Part Two]..13
5.1 Command Staff……………………………………..13
5.2 Medical Staff……………………………………..14
5.3 Selection…………………………………………14
5.4 Tattooing…………………………………………15
5.5 Medical Experimentation…………………………….15
5.5.1 Clauberg………………………………………..17
5.5.2 Mandel………………………………………….17
5.5.3 Mengele…………………………………………18
5.5.4 Oberhauser………………………………………18
5.5.5 Schumann………………………………………..19
6.0 Research Sources & Other Useful Appendices……………..19
6.1 Recommended Reading………………………………..20
6.2 Abbreviations Used in Citations……………………..21
6.3 Glossary………………………………………….22
6.4 Works Cited……………………………………….23<<NEW PAGE>>
[Auschwitz] [Page 1]

I have deleted a bit.

FP> MG> while breathing cyanide when the same gas used in US gas
FP> MG> chambers causes the cessation of breathing in no more than
FP> MG> two breaths.

FP> Cyanide?
FP> The gas used was Nyklon (sp?) B.

Zyklon B is cyanide.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * You only get six fouls per game. Make them count.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1637)
To: All 12 Mar 95 03:38:38
Subject: A SHORT FORM FOR THE DUMB

For those who can not read the long form.

Our schools are not teaching that 100% plus 4.5% is less
than 100%.

Is there anyone going to defend our schools now? Is there
anyone stupid enough to defend what our schools are teaching
these days?

Is there anyone stupid enough to defend Clinton or any
Democrat for believing the same premise? IF you are that stupid
please step forward and identify yourself.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Morality is a necessary evil.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1638)
To: All 12 Mar 95 03:38:40
Subject: CONGRESSIONAL FALSE LAWS

Congress Shall Make No Law
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/11>

Without going through a myriad of examples of Congress
exceeding it delegated authority, let us cut to the quick. In
passing laws in areas not delegated to it in the Constitution, it
is not, repeat NOT, responding to new social pressures and
changes in the world. I grant there have been many changes in
the two hundred plus years since it was adopted. But what
Congress is doing is not adapting to those changes.
What Congress is doing is to the state of affairs the
Constitution itself was intended to prohibit.
For example, at no time was the granting of the power to
regulate interstate commerce intended to me the power to prohibit
interstate commerce. If the power to regulate were intended to
be the power to prohibit interstate commerce then the federal
government would have been granted the power to economically
isolate the states. No one suggests that was a power granted to
Congress.
Yet, while agreeing there is no power of prohibition, we
have many laws prohibiting some forms of interstate commerce.
Try selling kiddie porn across state lines with an FBI agent
present and see what happens. That is the power of prohibition
that was not granted in the general and obviously does not exist
in the particular, ANY particular. The assault weapons ban is
the same issue. It is clear that if Congress has the power to
ban the manufacture of assault weapons and prohibit them from
interstate commerce then in fact Congress has the power to ban
any and all interstate commerce.
If Congress should decide it does not want people traveling
between states it clearly has the power to make doing so a felony
if you grant it has the power to prohibit any activity between
the states. If you do not accept that Congress has only the
powers granted to it then you accept that Congress has unlimited
powers as long as there is some word or three in the Constitution
under which it can act.
My point is that this is nothing new. It is a regression to
what was intended to be prohibited by the Constitution. It is
not adapting to modern times. And let us keep in mind here,
there were always modern times. Today we point to the instant
communications; in the past they pointed to the new and improved
reign of King Falderall the IV. That we now have TV instead of
one page newspapers does not mean that people are not using TV in
the same manner as those newspapers. That there were newspapers
instead of the town crier and the rumor mill does not mean they
were not used in the same manner.

Technology does not change human nature.

19+1 handguns instead of one shot flintlocks do not increase
crime. In the history of London the single most effective thing
to decrease crime was gaslights on the streets. The “guest
bedroom” came about as no dinner guest in his right mind would go
home after dark in the best of neighborhoods.
So are increasing gun restrictions a result of increased
technology? Of course not. But why the increased restrictions?
Because human nature wants regimentation of human behavior.
Regulating the arms a person may possess is as old as human
history. When Romans were using short swords “civilian” swords
were limited to a fraction of that length. When Japan saw its
Samurai system threatened by black powder it banned them rather
than getting better guns. When the peasants revolted against
Peter the Great’s attempt to industrialize Russia they were
banned from having any weapon.
So what is new? The people who claim new laws are necessary
because of changing times are NOT talking about laws which
address the changes in our times. They are in fact regressing to
the exact traditional and primitive response people have always
had. And the people specifically did not give Congress the power
to exercise those primitive responses.
Why should Congress have the power to prohibit Kentucky from
growing and exporting marijuana? Where is it written Congress
has the power to prohibit arbitrary items from interstate
commerce? The last time that was tried, it was called Prohibition
and took a Constitutional Amendment. Where is it written
Constitutional Amendments are no longer needed to do the same
thing?
I am fully aware that the points I am raising are at best
thirty years away from a concerted and no failures along the way
effort to be recognized again as the meaning of the Constitution.
It really is time to start over. At present the country is on a
path of worship it prior decisions and refusing to admit its
previous errors lest “the turmoil be too great.”
It is trivial
to point out that a finding against all federal drug laws would
wreck havoc upon our country. But it is more important to uphold
justice in that they have committed no crime as Congress had no
power to pass any such law.
We are arguing our own precedent rather than the
Constitution. The Constitution is not sacred. It can be changed
at any time and the means of changing it are stated within it.
But when these “forces of change” are in fact regressions to
exactly the arbitrary powers of government it was intend to
prohibit, that is not progress. It is not response to changing
times. It is regression to pre-constitutional times when
anything was fair game.
Gentlemen and ladies, it looks like a duck, it waddles like
a duck. I would prefer to believe it is a duck than a
Constitutional law.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Outgoing!
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1639)
To: Grant Karpik 12 Mar 95 03:38:40
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

GK> GK> > Odd! I’ve never seen any posting of Matt’s that said that the
GK> GK> > Holocaust didn’t happen!

GK> GK> JC> Actually, Matt claims that Jews were never gassed.

GK> GK> They were actually nice little holiday camps. 😉

GK> MG> Actually too many people need to call 1-800-ABCDEFG to
GK> MG> learn to comprehend what I have said.

GK> Actually, who cares….

I do not really care, there is no defense against
illiteracy. But it does give me some perverse satisfaction to
identify liars such as JC and apparently yourself for the message
thread. Liars are liars. They can be found any place.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Eat anything that doesn’t eat you first.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950316 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1914)
To: Grant Karpik 14 Mar 95 21:10:28
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

GK> MG> I almost forgot, are people who post that the belief
GK> MG> the sun rising in the east is a conspiracy kicked off?
GK> MG> Are those who post Bilderberger and Tri-lateral
GK> MG> conspiracies kicked off? Is there any other conspiracy
GK> MG> theorist that has been kicked off? I am quite familiar
GK> MG> with the internet. I am even personally acquainted with
GK> MG> the people who started it — the ones in charge. I know
GK> MG> of no rule that only this one claim is cause for being
GK> MG> kicked off.

GK> He wasn’t ‘kicked off’. His commercial provider decided
GK> that they didn’t want his business anymore. Capitalism in
GK> action….

Agreed completely. But we must also agree completely that
what passes for an organized effort on internet was the reason.
There were people who were self proclaimed Jews and others with
Jewish sounding surnames that were calling upon others to message
his provider to get him kicked off.

And thus Gannon was honest and truthful is his statement
that an organized Jewish effort resulted in his getting kicked
off of the internet. That is what I saw happening and there is
no question, unless the people posting were lying, that they did
mail complaints as part of the effort.

Thus in fact we have an formal and unquestionable example of
Jewish organized censorship on the internet. And this can be
quoted far and wide as evidence of Jewish censorship as this
example is completely true.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Philosophy is to knowledge as folklore is to elves.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1915)
To: All 14 Mar 95 21:10:28
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

GK> He wasn’t ‘kicked off’. His commercial provider decided
GK> that they didn’t want his business anymore. Capitalism in
GK> action….

®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 – (1916)
To: Frank Palmer 14 Mar 95 21:10:30
Subject: ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

FP> MG> Von Neuman is nothing special. He just happened to be
FP> MG> around in the beginning of computers and he is hardly what
FP> MG> we would call a scientist, more like an engineer.

FP> John von Neuman (Neumann ? can’t spell) was a first class
FP> mathematician. Where you got hte idea that he was an
FP> engineer, I don’t know. But then, your opinions are hard
FP> to trace to a factual source.

I said, more like an engineer. The distinction between
science, applied science, and engineering is always blurred.
That his major contribution is always, to my reading, that
program and data should be stored in the same memory “bank” is an
engineering decision.

As to tracing my opinions, just ask. Posting is hard enough
without including footnotes.

FP> MG> But in any event, their opinions are not evidence.

FP> Nor are your opinions evidence. The difference is that
FP> their opinions are supported by their accomplishments,

And, other than the engineering decision I posted, did he
accomplish?

®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 – (1917)
To: John Powell 14 Mar 95 21:10:30
Subject: UNPERMITTED SKEPTICISM 01

JP> JP> I didn’t know at the time that it was an unpermitted topic
JP> JP> for this Echo and I’ve always been secretly interested in
JP> JP> the ‘internal dynamics’ of those who flatly disbelieve the
JP> JP> Holocaust…

JP> MG> That never came up here at least by the person who first
JP> MG> posted. It was only fallaciously and falsely introduced by
JP> MG> those who responded.

JP> Yep, I noticed that too. Even though this is a
JP> conversational-like forum you know that some topics don’t
JP> proceed the way a face-to-face conversation would. If you
JP> said such-and-such-Holocaust-stuff in a face-to-face group
JP> setting somebody might say “Hey, did you say the Holocaust
JP> never happenned?” and you’d be able to reply “Of course
JP> not, that’s not what I meant!” The exchange would take 10
JP> seconds to resolve. In this type of forum that type of
JP> exchange could take 10 _WEEKS_ to resolve and I can easily
JP> understand why the Moderator(s) don’t want to spend all
JP> that time on an unnecessary disruption.

Rather in this week’s politics one might say, are you really
cutting school lunches? And the answer would be, we are
increasing it and anyone saying it is a cut is doing so
deliberately and for similar reasons.

But to a conference that has existed for years, what is ten
weeks?

JP> MG> Speaking of how true beliefs arise, this conference is a
JP> MG> perfect example.

JP> How do you mean?

By the above example. What people have claimed was said but
not said it now true. And skeptics will not accept skepticism of
their own claims and will not support them when asked to do so.

JP> JP> Well, there have to be limits and as per strict definition
JP> JP> I agree that Holocaust claims are not fringe science.

JP> MG> Fringe science? Such claims are contrary to science but
JP> MG> then I am too close to the off topic line to go further.

JP> I don’t know exactly how other people draw their lines or
JP> make their definitions. In my mind Science is that which
JP> we’re pretty sure about at this particular moment and
JP> Fringe Science is that which we’re pretty sure is at least
JP> somewhat counter to what we’re pretty sure about at the
JP> moment <grin>.

Try it this way. If a documented, well understood, in all
the textbooks and known physiologic process, reported in our
media every couple years is reported occuring entirely
differently in another limited place and time, which would you
suspect? See you in DEBATE or CONTROV for the explicit example.

JP> I have no problem with Holocaust stuff be classed as
JP> non-Fringe Science since it mostly doesn’t deal with the
JP> present collection of Science Laws.

Try the above conferences and remind me to give you the
example with references.

JP> MG> Of course there was none here. The nearest response to it
JP> MG> was claiming the skeptics had reviewed the skeptics. A
JP> MG> self congratulatory tautology so to speak.

JP> However, if the skeptics who reviewed the skeptics have
JP> made significant documentable errors then you could always
JP> specifically document those errors and ask the Moderator if
JP> you could post that documentation without discussion.

There were no errors presented that were relevant and the
relevant is a CYA as I remember none at all but someone might
have posted one.

JP> MG> I was kind of hoping that this crowd
JP> JP> could address those specifics (for personal reasons because
JP> JP> I just don’t see how the existing documentation can be
JP> JP> refuted and because the psychology behind Holocaust
JP> JP> disbelief is interesting).

JP> MG> No problem here. The moderator has declared irreproducable
JP> MG> personal testimony to be absolutely true and unquestionable
JP> MG> and that skepticism of impossible claims is not permitted.

JP> I don’t think that’s exactly what the Moderator declared…<grin>

Given the name of the conference, that is exactly what was
done. Now had there been an explanation that would moderate my
opinion. As there was none and given the conference title, that
is what happened.

JP> JP> Oh well, maybe another day, another place…<grin>

JP> MG> Obviously not in this conference.

JP> Its not really a big deal to me. My interest was in trying
JP> to get a glimpse at the psychology of disbelief as regards
JP> alternative beliefs of the Holocaust. I think my life will
JP> continue pretty much as usual without having had that
JP> glimpse.

I find it of the most interest in that the groups related to
this off topic subject go high order at the slightest hint of
anything violating their space. That is the psychology I am
exploring. I am good at sensing a hot button sticking out and I
will push it to see what happens. I am not really a bad guy as
the other person is advertising that hot button in what the post.

Even with pro or anti abortion types, what they are posting
is daring you. If you don’t touch it you can say most anything
else about the subject and they don’t pay attention and are
otherwise rational. This is different.

I first discovered it in the very early 80s when, in a BBS
discussion of some point of military strategy I pointed out that
a certain middle eastern nation was a liability to the US. The
next day I got the N word and the anti word in several responses.
And it has was downhill from there.

That is a hot button that fascinates me. I did not even
realize it was there to the point of irrationality. I have been
exploring it ever since.

It came up in this conference because of someone’s post
where I simply noted that is was not acceptable to be skeptical
of a certain subject and you noted the response. And then a
group of self proclaimed skeptics proving exactly what I first
stated and only what I stated.

It is like going to a UFO conference and questioning
Communion. No evidence for Communion presented, no evidence
against those challenging Communion presented, only claims that
**
Continued in the next message…
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950317 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1894)
To: George Noonan 14 Mar 95 02:16:06
Subject: AUSCHWITZ

GN> MG> You are saying that if the holocaust have never
GN> MG> occurred people would have the idea that the murder of
GN> MG> millions of people is acceptable. Why if the holocaust had
GN> MG> never happened people would be advocating mass murder of
GN> MG> minorities every day. There would be votes on which
GN> MG> minority is next.

GN> Stalin said that killing one or two people was murder and
GN> wrong, but that killing 100,000 people was just a
GN> statistic! Unfortunately THAT is also the opinion of many
GN> others. You need only note the apoligists for Pol Pot in
GN> this country to confirm that.

I can not argue the continued apologies by liberals does get
a bit tiring but then we can not educate by any means people who
can only deal with emotion and are incapable of reason.

®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 – (1895)
To: Frank Palmer 14 Mar 95 02:16:06
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

FP> FP> What of that is not credible?
FP> FP> What evidence could there be that is not there?

FP> AG> Watch out! Matt isn’t denying the death camps – just the method of
FP> AG> murder.

FP> If the question is gas or something else:
FP> 1) It’s a silly question.
FP> 2) I’ve seen published reports of the evaluation of various
FP> kinds of poison gas.

Interestingly so have I have I have posted what I have read.
Why do you not post what you have read on cyanide gas. (Hint:
Zyklon B is cyanide.)

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Never assume conspiracy where stupidity will suffice.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1896)
To: Warren Kash 14 Mar 95 02:16:06
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

WK> FP> Cyanide?
WK> FP> The gas used was Nyklon (sp?) B.

WK> This gas was made by the same company who is the parent
WK> company of the manufacturer of RU 486 – the abortion brew.

Is this supposed to be relevant or a clumsy attempt to
confuse issues.

But then, name the companies involved. Lets see if they are
the same as in the FAQ.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I don’t call 911.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1897)
To: George Noonan 14 Mar 95 02:16:08
Subject: ORIGIN OF HUMAN RIGHTS

GN> GN> again. To pass off political correctness and a misuse of
GN> GN> mathematical statistics as science is what deplore.

GN> MG> To repeat the question, what is your problem with
GN> MG> anthropology. I am interested. There is no statistics of
GN> MG> interest used in anthropology so that is not an objection.

GN> I have read anthropologoical “studies” that included what
GN> was claimed to be statistics Matt. But the real problem is
GN> that its practicioners just use jargonese and of course be
GN> politically correct to boot.

Please cite the sources that used statistics. And to the
best of your memory, tell me about their use. Obviously you read
it and had sufficient information for you to draw an independent
conclusion that the use was fallacious. Of course if you are not
willing to at least post what you remember …

As for your claims of politically correct jargon, please
post, to the best of your memory, the examples which led you to
independently formulate an opinion about the entire field.
Again, refusal to post…

GN> GN> Well such men as Einstein, Fermi and von Neumann – *real*
GN> GN> scientists all – would disagree with you that there is no
GN> GN> evidence of a Creator Matt.

GN> MG> I would be interested in reading the EVIDENCE the
GN> MG> wrote about. Hint: I do have the complete statement of
GN> MG> Einstein of which only one line is commonly used and it is
GN> MG> no such thing.

GN> I doubt that it is complete Matt. I am refering to a press
GN> interview published in the New York Times cicra 1948 in
GN> which he said in effect that he accepted the telolgical
GN> arguement of God’s existance, and that anyone who did not
GN> couldn’t be very bright.

A press interview, given the reliability of the press in
such matters, is completely worthless.

GN> MG> Would you like to post the evidence of the others?
GN> MG> EVIDENCE, not opinion.

GN> I know that many of the juviniles on this board insist on
GN> time, dates and much more additional crap before they will
GN> accept anything put down. But I do NOT lie Matt. And at
GN> my advanced age I will be damned if I am going out of my
GN> way to “prove” anything at all. If you don’t want to
GN> believe me that is YOUR problem, not mine. But when I say,
GN> as I did above, that Einstein was reported as accepting the
GN> teleological proof of God’s existance I speak the TRUTH.
GN> Take it or leave it! I was aquainted with both Fermi and
GN> von Newmann. They were both devout Roman Catholics. They
GN> both accepted one or more of Aquinas’s arguements to the
GN> existance of God. I don’t give a rat’s ass if you believe
GN> me or not.

A very long paragraph to admit you have no evidence. Why
did you bother to reply at all? What Einstein accepted is proof
of nothing.

GN> MG> You will be required to use commonly accepted
GN> MG> scientific definition of evidence OR post the definition
GN> MG> you intend to use. You may not substitute the OPINION of
GN> MG> other people, such as you tried above with some scientists.
GN> MG> Their opinions are not

GN> I will do as I damn well please. Again I speak the truth,
GN> and I am not going to try and prove it!

That is right. You have no evidence. You made a false
claim. And to reiterate, there is no evidence of any god,
period.

GN> MG> Von Neuman is nothing special. He just happened to be
GN> MG> around in the beginning of computers and he is hardly what
GN> MG> we

GN> With Marganstern Von Neumann wrote “The Theory of Games and
GN> Economic Behavior”. The mathematical theory of games was
GN> the greatest innovation in mathematics since the calculus –
GN> and much, much more important at it formed the development
GN> of multi-valued logic.

Multi-valued logic was developed by Alfred Korzybski in
Poland in the late 1920s. The invention of game theory might be
impressive but that was not him. This application of game theory
has not been singular in explaining economic behavior nor is this
paper of any particular note in economics, merely one of many of
passing interest.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If the gods will not listen, then to hell with them.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1898)
To: Forrest Lamont 14 Mar 95 02:16:08
Subject: TYRANNY ???

FL> Just one ‘flake’ will still be able to swing the vote.
FL> Actually it will make it easier for the cereal set, example
FL> make it 95% to pass and only 5.1% will be needed to defeat
FL> it. So you see it becomes a balancing act between two evils
FL> the the populace or the flakes. Now there’s a depressing
FL> FACT for you.
FL>
FL> Just my 2* worth.

Anything that results in fewer laws is a good thing. I
grant that a few could stand in the way of the repeal of a law
but is an acceptable tradeoff to me.

®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 – (1899)
To: All 14 Mar 95 02:16:08
Subject: VOTING WITHOUT A RACE

I am conducting a little experiment. I recently moved and
sent back my voter registration card for an address change. As I
had changed counties (in Florida) the registrar could not issue me
a new card but sent a form to fill out and mail to the registrar
in my new county. (I could find no indication if everyone could
register by mail or if it was restricted to changes but it looked
like everything and there was a warning that a false filing was a
class 3 felony, not bad.)

So what interested me were two side by side blocks. One
asked for my SSN but it was clearly labeled as optional and a
line on the instructions confirmed this.

The other box was labeled RACE. The instructions gave the
choices of race but did not say it was optional. So I filled in
the block “optional.”

Does anyone want to guess as to whether or not I can be
deprived of the right to vote for failing to give my “race”? I
mean they can not insist I speak english. They can not require
me to pass a test. Can they require me to give something that
has no relationship to the right to vote?

Stay tuned.

®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_950318 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1970)
To: All 16 Mar 95 06:45:04
Subject: A SOCIALIST IS A MARяяяяя

BH> > Socialism is Fascism
BH> > by
BH> > Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/10>

BH> > I know the assertion in the title upsets liberals in that
BH> > they know they are closet socialists and do not like hearing the
BH> > truth. I have read their objections and now I am going to do a
BH> > more complete treatment of this subject.

BH> I see it differently, Matt. There are liberal capitalists
BH> and there are conservative capitalists. I consider myself a
BH> liberal; I am proud that I founded and was president of a
BH> corporation two and a half decades ago.
BH>
BH> In my view, there is another continuum: selfishness on one
BH> end, and generosity on the other. Conservatives are
BH> basically selfish. Liberals are basically generous. And
BH> before your knee hits your chin, yes, that includes “with
BH> other people’s money.” 🙂

You will recall this paragraph from the article.
===
In the US, the parties with socialist in their names did not
get very far. What happen in the Democrat Party, which today has
lead to the “liberal” philosophy, is that they merely spoke of
principles without ever mentioning their origins. This is
demonstrated today in that liberals can only deal with emotion
and can not rationally support their positions. That is because
they have cut themselves off from their intellectual roots in
Marxism.
===

In place of emotional I could have said moral to illustrate
the lack of an intellectual basis for liberalism. Had I done
that I presume you would have used emotional terms rather than
moral terms in your response. In any event, noticeable by its
lack, is an intellectually based response.

And if you agree that it is generosity with other people’s
money then you also would agree that this “generosity” is based
upon, in your terms, the imposition of their morality upon
others. That differs in no serious way from imposing one’s
religion upon another. One might as well support churches with
tax money out of the personal belief that religion is good as
generosity is good.

The arbitrary assertion of a thing as good is not the basis
for government action. Nor is that definition imposeable, only
enforceable, upon others.

In the case of generosity it imposes a concept of it that is
in fact foreign to theology save in recent years in some
religions demonstrating that eternal truth is a transient thing.
The major religions of the world, including the Hebraic rooted
ones, agree that personal generosity is a personal moral good.

Whether the founders of these religions are viewed as simply
wise moral thinkers, as speaking for some god, or perhaps the
symbol of the collective thought of a group they are all absent
any concept of group morality save for the pronouncements of some
prophets in the OT. Today we are absent prophets save in Salt
Lake City.

Thus liberalism, taking you as a spokesman for it, have
defined as good something that is absent in all of these
teachings upon what is good. Thus you have not even moral roots
for this idea as you are not talking personal good but social
good. In this manner the imposition of moral values does not
differ from the imposition of religious values.

And in this matter it is being done without evidence that
imposed group generosity is good without invoking false logic
upon morality and arguing from the specific to the general.
Given the logic is false, the general good must be demonstrated
not merely assumed. And in that your response fails to provide
any kind of intellectual basis for liberalism.

You could have responded with an intellectual basis for this
“generosity” a la Robin Hood with other people’s money but you
did not. You could have advanced some premise such as a
compelling government interest for this use of government force
in an area not delegated to it by the people. That would be
right in line with your profession and you could certainly do a
fine job of demonstrating that compelling interest IF you could
find such an interest.

That way you could both disallow what I wrote by providing
an intellectual basis and we could move the conversation into a
rational discussion where we could agree upon data, evidence and
what constitutes the principles of reason.

But although you may not have done it deliberately you did
in fact demonstrate that liberalism lacks intellectual roots.

BH> The founders of the Soviet Socialist Republic were clearly
BH> neither liberal nor generous.

Nor did I say they were. I pointed out that both have roots
in marxism. Although their generosity with the wealth of the
upper and middle class in taking it for the good of all into
ownership by the state was one of the justifications for the
revolution in the first place. That it was done for the
untested, non-logical but marxist premises that a government
acting for the general good would in fact result in a general
good.

That a general good has been accomplished by the US liberal
implementation of similar marxist principles is a fact that is
far from being in evidence as the judgement has to be made in the
light of both the intended and the unintended consequences of
this general generosity.

While it is clear that one person taking the wealth of
another and giving it to a third is clearly an evil. And of
course it would similarly be fallaciously arguing from the
specific to the general to claim it is a general evil when done
collectively.

However, the specific case above is in fact the case you
have falsely implied was a good. Person generosity of one person
to another may be a moral good you have in fact declared the
three party forced generosity evil to be good and then made the
fallacious generalization with a falsely labeled activity.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Reach out and offend someone.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1971)
To: All 16 Mar 95 06:45:06
Subject: A SOCIALIST IS A MARяяяяя

BH> And the man who penned “all men are created equal” was not
BH> a socialist. But I don’t expect you’ll recognize my
BH> viewpoint except to declare it invalid. Ho hum.

I am certain as an attorney you can clearly deal with a
political Declaration Of Independence that was, in context, a
statement against not only the British nobility system but also a
statement against the separate status of Englishmen in England
and Englishmen in the colonies.

The closest one can come (that I am aware of) to viewing the
political and economic roots of this document is to consider that
Jefferson’s draft used Locke’s phrasing “life, liberty and the
pursuit of property” rather than happiness. To me the retention
of the rest of Locke, and the serious issues of restraint of
commerce by the British, indicates to me a rather clear that
liberty in life and in the market place were considered different
aspects of the same thing.

However, as its purpose is primarily independence and
secondarily to provide a list of reasons, it would be foolish to
go much further than the above observation.

However as a legal basis we would have to go to the
Constitution where the means of providing for the general welfare
are clearly spelled out in Article 1, Section 8. Of these items
we find several dedicated toward a well running market economy in
the weights and measures, money, patents, and regulation clauses.

Of course, as both documents preceded marxism neither can
have any relationship to socialism.

®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 – (1972)
To: Darren Garrison 16 Mar 95 06:45:06
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

DG> MG>DG> Nope. Missed that part. :-(. Dan thinks that the
DG> MG>DG> Holocoust never happened at all. It was all a big Jewish
DG> MG>DG> conspiricy (and so was his getting kicked off of the
DG> MG>DG> Internet). ___

DG> MG> I almost forgot, are people who post that the belief
DG> MG> the sun rising in the east is a conspiracy kicked off? Are
DG> MG> those who post Bilderberger and Tri-lateral conspiracies
DG> MG> kicked off? Is there any other conspiracy theorist that has
DG> MG> been kicked off? I am quite familiar with the internet. I
DG> MG> am even personally acquainted with the people who started it
DG> MG> — the ones in charge. I know of no rule that only this one
DG> MG> claim is cause for being kicked off.

DG> Gannon, if you remember him, spammed many, maybe most,
DG> maybe all, Fidonet conferences with a long article
DG> explaining how he had been “Censored from the Internet”
DG> If memory serves me, apparently he had been given a list
DG> of 12 newsgroups where it would be OK for him to publish
DG> his Holocoust revisionist news-letter. Apparently, from
DG> reading between the lines, he didn’t like that limitation

People who are intent upon reading between the lines miss
the lines themselves which clearly state this did not occur.

DG> and spammed the Internet the same way he did Fido and was
DG> kicked off for that. I would say that he was probably
DG> kicked off, not because he wrote about the Holocoust, but
DG> because he wrote about the Holocoust in areas where it was
DG> decidedly off topic. Who, for instance, would want to hear
DG> about the Holocoust in alt.sex.small_furry_animals? ___ *

IF you had read his account, and since I was reading his
internet stuff at the time and his recounting is as I remember
it, you will remember he was requested to cease posting on some
many conference and limit himself to a specific list of
newsgroups. He recounts that he did do that, i.e. as requested.

That is NOT spamming. That is doing as requested. IF the
claim were to spamming then he would have lost access BEFORE he
restricted his posts to the small number of newsgroups.

I will also confirm that people continued to urge others to
work to get him silenced completely even after that occurred.
Then finally succeeded. That is censorship. There is no excuse
for it.

That is the sequence of events as they occurred. Your
recounting uses the first event a second time as justification
after it ceased.

®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 – (2169)
To: Linda Terrell 17 Mar 95 01:17:10
Subject: DEGRADING THE HALOCAUST

LT> The pro lifers use the Holocaust as a smokescfreen
LT> thereby degrading the Halocaust.

That would include all of what once was West Germany who
were far from fitting in the other category. That was the basis
for their ban, the world opinion might change.

LT> Prove that the freely chosen, random abortion in this
LT> country is a Universal Plan.

It was Margaret Sanger’s plan and the poor which has a black
population some 12 times greater than white are the primary target
for abortion counseling.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Visit the Hannibal Lechter Dinner Theater.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2170)
To: Alec Grynspan 17 Mar 95 01:17:10
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES Rec’d

AG> I bring in about 7000+ newsgroups as a Usenet provider
AG> (gryn.org, net250.org and tor250.org) and he was all over
AG> the place!
AG>
AG> Don’t let anybody fool you. Usenet is incredibly
AG> inefficient. It’s the speed of the lines that lets us
AG> handle the volumes (try a T1 feeding several ISDN lines as
AG> secondaries).
AG>
AG> Those lines cost! We don’t appreciate somebody spamming
AG> crap into tech echoes and cranking up the bill!

But as you know from Gannon’s accurate recounting of events
he was 1) paying for his usage under the conditions of his
contract and 2) after being asked agreed to limit the newsgroups
to a small number.

So there is no justification for his being terminated and
all of this speculation is rather meaningless as though doing the
terminating have not given their reasons.

However it is clear (I read them) that people who were
self-identified and easily identified as> Jews were in fact
calling for him to be removed from the net. And as you
familiarity with it makes clear to you, that is be best the
passes for organization on that network. Thus his claim of an
organized Jewish effort to get him removed from internet is also
accurate and correct.

Censorship, uber alles!

®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 – (2171)
To: Eldridge Currie 17 Mar 95 01:17:10
Subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH EXPOSED!

EC> Limbaugh is laughing all the way to the bank as the
EC> American middle class is being destroyed daily. Someone
EC> should be keeping tabs on this phenomenon. How many good
EC> jobs were lost today a replaced by low-paying service jobs.
EC> He is getting rich while his fans are getting poorer.

What would a Canadian know about the American middle class?

Would you be one of those to first define a “middle class”
when economists are unable to do so? Would you then, using
whatever definition you manage to come up with, post the evidence
in support of this claim?

EC> We don’t have the equivalent to Limbaugh in Canada, but we
EC> have the English Queen’s Prime Minister who, after trotting
EC> down to Seattle (or Spokane) at Klinton’s bidding, came out
EC> of that meeting white faced, and changed his stand on NAFTA
EC> and so this counry’s middle class is also disappearing
EC> daily.

That is everyone’s response to meeting Clinton face to face.

®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 – (2172)
To: All 17 Mar 95 01:17:10
Subject: RUSH LIMBAUGH HIDDEN

To repeat an old challenge which no one on this conference
even attempted to answer much less answer correctly. The
character of Limbaugh already exists in fiction, in movie.
Comparison to that character is very close use of that comparison
would be more devastatingly accurate than any of the foolish name
calling done by his detractors.

There are even parallels in his career that match those of
the fictional character.

The challenge? Name that character.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I never apologize.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950320 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2012)
To: Stephen Frazier 18 Mar 95 03:04:52
Subject: A SHORT FORM FOR THE DUMB

SF> MG> Is there anyone stupid enough to defend Clinton or any
SF> MG> Democrat for believing the same premise? IF you are that
SF> MG> stupid please step forward and identify yourself.

SF> Hard to believe, but there will probably be a whole crowd
SF> of them stepping forward. Just watch.

They already have. But then you were betting on a sure
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 – (2013)
To: Darren Garrison 18 Mar 95 03:04:54
Subject: PBS AND THE 1ST

DG> MG> Freedom of speech is so revered and protected a bullwhip up
DG> MG>a man’s anus is protected but … hold it. I have a problem
DG> MG>here. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

DG> Finally, something we agree on.

DG> Are you sure that your problem isn’t the fact that PBS
DG> dosen’t claim that Europe’s rape of the New World wasn’t
DG> all wonderful enlightenment of the ignorant natives and
DG> that homosexuals aren’t evil monsters that you should hide
DG> your children from? — Silver Xpress Mail System 5.03H1

Are you talking about something relevant to this topic or is
this a test message?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I am not a number. I am a free man.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2014)
To: All 18 Mar 95 03:04:54
Subject: SEAN O’CLAST

Sean O’Clast, Icon Smasher
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/16>

The young Sean was raised and educated by his family apart
from the teachings of the new religion Patrick had brought to
auld Erie. As he grew to a young man he made his fame among the
old people who were still in power by making jokes of the new
Roman Catholic religion. Where they had a sacred belief that was
not reasonable he would tell a story that would ridicule it.
As he grew older the old men in power died off and the
younger who were staunch Roman Catholics drove him from Erie as
they would have no ridicule of their beliefs. As the older but
wise Sean fled first to Britain and then to France and across
Europe he found every place his insights into the foibles of
Roman Catholicism were not appreciated.
As his last refuge he found himself in Byzantium where in
his audience with the emperor he recited his stories of the
foibles of Roman Catholicism and as head of the Eastern Catholic
Church he laughed at Sean’s wisdom and insight. Sean was
appointed to the court with the task of finding fault with the
Roman Rite.
And for years he prospered, traveling around the Empire and
every place he went people laughed and understood the failings of
the Roman Rite. But in age Sean’s compassion for his adopted land
and people grew and he wished to give them insight into their own
foibles so that they might not be as foolish as their Roman
brethren.
And so he prepared his magnum oratory to reveal his insights
into the foolishness of the Eastern Rite. And with great
announcement and many to hear, he delivered his wisdom to the
empire. And he was executed.
In his last moments he realized the greatest wisdom an
iconoclast can have. It is only the faults of others that people
wish exposed.
More practically those who shatter icons in all directions
will collect approbrium from all directions. Though they may
collect an attaboy from one side or the other occasionally, one
aw shit cancels a thousand attaboys. Ridicule 999 liberal and 1
conservative icon and one might as well not have lived.
It is not limited to two sided issues but in humans there
exist few places for a person who attacks in all directions. So
when we see an person like H. L. Menkin who passed for a liberal
in his day, was his position as a thinker safe when fifty years
later it surfaced his opinions of races and Jews were the same as
was common in his time, everything he wrote, previously praised,
was written off.
Then was the the praise for thinking, not for the thinking
but rather for the position he took? Could not a clever fool
take the same position and garner similar praise? And how does
one tell the difference?
A case could be claim that if enough years go by all the
previous issues will be forgotten and a determination can be
made. But the nearest example we have of that is Aristophanes
and I would suggest that is more based upon modern ignorance of
real Greek life than upon his wit. We have no idea of the
complete social setting in his time and his breadth my have
presented only one side of the thought of the times.
Rather to be successful, an iconoclast must be a member of
only one side and never attack that side. And iconoclast is
simply a market niche like any other.
Perhaps I have bored you to tears but if you got this far
let me go into a recent example, Newt Gingrich. He is a man who,
like him or not, agree with him or not, he calls them as he sees
them. When he started this Congress he called for questioning
everything, that thinking was on the table. He assigned a
tutorial reading list to the new Congress.
His point was not only to challenge the icons that had
governed Congress for 40 years but to call everything into
question. It failed. When he put traditional conservative
thinking on the table he lost the thrust of media attention. He
still gets a few seconds now and then and agreed the thrust is
now with the committee chairmen but under the presumption the
media at least wants to know who their audience wants to hear has
shifted from “question everything” to challenging what is
happening.
For a more longstanding issue a person can make a career of
joking about the Muslims rhetoric against Israel but vice versa
is the kiss of death.
If that is not to your liking find someone puncturing the
posturing of the Christians against homosexuality and abortion
and then see what happens when that same person punctures the
equal stupidity of homosexuals and the pro-abortion types.
Find a person both strongly support the arts and the art of
western culture and at the same time being against government
funding of the arts and see if he has any friends. Certainly he
has friends but does he have someone willing to give him a
platform?
If you wish to be an iconoclast be prepared to have to find
some form of mammon that will give you sanctuary and guard your
back. And thus you see in western history a dirth of examples of
people who will poke holes in every fallacy. You see none who
will agree there are no correct answers.
There is a place that holds all human ideas are humorous.
That is the Tao. But then, even the enlightened know there is no
fun to be had without choosing a side. And of course the penalty
for switching sides is well understood.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The revolution is coming because we find the law revolting.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2015)
To: Pete Bucy 18 Mar 95 03:04:54
Subject: THE HOLOCAUST

PB> MG> And there is a purpose to this “analogy”. The US
PB> MG> examples have a purpose. The Nazi examples have no purpose.
PB> MG> If they can not do the job, they die. It does not matter
PB> MG> which person was interchanged for another.

PB> Of course it does. Why do we give the prisoners in our
PB> jails numbers? Why do our soldiers have “dog-tags?” Matt,
PB> some slave owners tattooed their slaves. Most owners of
PB> prize livestock or pets tattoo their animals.
PB>
PB> Numbering workers, or dissidents, or alien workers is just
PB> a way to keep order. It allow you to track those in the
PB> system and those who have left. I can think of no better
PB> way to permanently assign a number to a worker or a
PB> prisoner than to tattoo it on him.

Yes, BUT, as to our prisoners we do not march them into
prison, number then, then execute them. That is the purported
sequence of events for the holocaust, is it not? “Tattoo on the
left, gas chamber on the right” is not quite the scenario we are
talking about here. Get your number before we burn it off is not
the same thing.

If that is not what happened then what is the story to be?

PB> MG>PB> Many of these folks were highly skilled. You would not
PB> MG>PB> want to lose the head machinist at your slave labor
PB> MG>PB> munitions factory. Think about it, whey do police have
PB> MG>PB> badge numbers? Why does my wife’s company ID card have a
PB> MG>PB> number on it? It is simply how businesses track workers.

PB> MG> How would these workers be lost? It was remaining in that
PB> MG>skilled job that kept them alive? Right? So why would they run
PB> MG>away or hide or whatever? And if you want to talk escape, the
PB> MG>simple lack of papers was sufficient for an arrest and
PB> MG>identifying one’s self as said “highly skilled worker” was the
PB> MG>best chance of continued survival.

PB> In this case, they might escape.

And in that case a simple J is sufficient.

Or they might be
PB> “borrowed” by another company that was working in the same
PB> labor camp. Some prisoners did escape, and no amount of
PB> forged paperwork could erase the tattoo on their arms.

What borrowed? Did it matter who executed them? Rather
there is no evidence of borrowing.

PB> A tattoo is a great way to keep track of people living
PB> under your army of occupation. If someone has a tattoo, you
PB> can keep records on him. If he does not have one, he might
PB> be a spy or a resistance fighter.

What records? For this claim to be correct then there have
to be numbered records of these interim activities. I have never
heard of any. Have you? Until they exist, this is speculation
only.

PB> MG> As for our police we care who they are in the very long
PB> MG> run. They are not simply disposed of when they fail.

PB> The tattoo that was used most likely had little to do with
PB> killing inmates. It was a very efficient way to keep track
PB> of millions of people, some workers, some waiting to die.

WHY, if the purpose was to ship off and execute, was there
an interest in keeping track of? The record “shipped off” was
the same as “dead”. Who would care? There is NO report I am
aware of that says the serial number was recorded on the way to
the showers. What is this all about?

PB> MG> Why would they CARE about tracking if the criteria
PB> MG> (contrary to the previous skilled labor explanation) for
PB> MG> extermination was simply unable to do the job? Why would
PB> MG> any one care WHICH number was unable to do the job. Any old
PB> MG> number unable to do the job would do.

PB> Why do we issue social security numbers?

Because it matters who the person is and what that person
paid in over his life so that he can get something that is
dependent upon the person. And thus there is a future purpose
for it that has a meaning to the government. There are different
payments for the future. Even if the purpose were excite them at
age 68 there would be a reason. If the objective is to execute
them, period, there is no justification.

PB> MG> We number our prisoners because we treat them more or
PB> MG> less like human beings and expect to release them back into
PB> MG> society. If the ultimate end of every prison sentence was
PB> MG> death, it would hardly matter.

PB> Prisoners on death row are given numbers and we never
PB> expect to see them back on the streets again.

Were the purpose to walk them into the prison and escort
them to the execution chamber I would agree the assignment of a
number is a waste.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I, Matthias Gloriosus, I, messager to 1000s, I am my ideal.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2016)
To: Forrest Lamont 18 Mar 95 03:04:54
Subject: TYRANNY ???

FL> MG> Anything that results in fewer laws is a good thing. I
FL> MG> grant that a few could stand in the way of the repeal of a
FL> MG> law but is an acceptable tradeoff to me.

FL> For cryin’ out loud Matt, you were arguing about the
FL> tyranny of the 51%. Now you’re accepting the tyranny of a
FL> measly 5%? Which is it or are you saying that any amount
FL> however small should control the passage of laws, so long
FL> as you are among that group? Now if it is simply to prevent
FL> the passage of ANY laws then of course the 95 to 5 percent
FL> ratio would definitly do the trick.
FL>
FL> Not sure a society built upon such would function very well
FL> though. Just my 2* worth.

I do not see the repeal of laws to be any form of government
tyranny. That total absence of laws is the absence of
government. The two ideas work in the same direction.

It is impossible to hold the absence of laws is tyranny.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Few, the Proud, the Politically Incorrect!
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2017)
To: Forrest Lamont 18 Mar 95 03:04:54
Subject: MATT GIWER’S TROUBLES

> MG> while breathing cyanide when the same gas used in US gas
FL> MG> chambers causes the cessation of breathing in no more than
FL> MG> two breaths.

FL> Caught short citing again, Matt. The claims of screaming
FL> for half an hour in the gas chambers is very easy to
FL> explain: the length of time necessary to die by breathing
FL> cyanide is INVERSLY PROPORTIONAL to the concentration of
FL> the gas i.e. ratio of cyanide to air. Check any text about
FL> operation of gas chambers in use today at prisons.
FL>
FL> The good cost concious nazis used the bare minimums and
FL> there are nazi reports stating that certain concentrations
FL> of gas would leave some alive, but unconcious. These were
FL> merely dozed or burned with the rest.
FL>
FL> Just a suggestion Matt, but if you spent 90% of your time
FL> researching and 10% on writing your essays, you’d have a
FL> much better product. Quantity does not equate to quality.
FL> Your work product has confirmed that old adage to a
FL> fair-thee-well.
FL>
FL> Just my 2c worth.

Whatever you price it at.

Is your entire disagreement based upon a “cost conscious”
stereotype?

Or do you have a numeric basis for this objection given the
amount used vice the available air in the chamber and the
sublimation rate of Zyklon-B?

And are you saying that the physiologic response of a lower
rate of the gas would explain this response and what data do you
have to support this claim?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Give Corruption a Chance.” Matt Giwer
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2148)
To: All 19 Mar 95 01:29:50
Subject: BASEBALL CONCESSIONS

Baseball Concession Costs
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/17>

Everyone complains about these costs. Everyone appears to
accept them. Were we in New York City and finding absurdly high
prices that are far beyond the costs of providing them we would
instantly know the cause. The Mafia is running the operation.
Yet why is this obvious explanation never brought up when it
comes to the price of concessions? It is not that sports is the
only place people bid for exclusive rights to the concessions
operation. Airports come to mind and I have yet to hear of a
three dollar hot dog or five dollar beer in an airport. There
are captive markets in both airports and sporting arenas. I see
no difference between the two situations.
Certainly I have no evidence. Clearly I am speculating. I
completely agree that if something quacks like a duck and waddles
like a duck it just might not be a duck. It could be a chicken,
maybe even a manatee.
Certainly concessions are part of the earnings that people
who manage the stadiums need for a return on their investment.
And the people who operate the concessions have to get a return
on their investment. Everyone needs to get a return on their
investment. But everyone else appears to be able to do that at
$1 a beer and in exclusive concession places at $1.50 a small
glass with a lot of foam.
Who is making this outrageous return on their investment? I
can see monopolies all along the way but I do not see them as any
different from airports. In fact airports usually have some form
of tax relief or even public ownership as do sports stadiums.
Now I find it difficult to conceive of a more captive market
than exists on an aircraft in flight. The price of beer is not
comparable to the price in a stadium even though the airlines
engage in price fixing for drinks.
So what other explanation is there? Is it whatever the
market will bear? In the rest of this world when prices go down
sales increase more than enough so that profits increase. If
anyone does not believe that, how many of you would have a hard
disk at the ridiculously low introductory price to consumers of
only $5000.00 for 10 Megs?
Do the high prices keep people from getting drunk? Are the
stadiums enamored with the idea there should only be rich drunks?
Fine. Why are they concerned about people getting fat?
Preventing drunkenness does not justify the price of a hotdog
although one may have to be a bit drunk to pay the price.
We appear to be back to this quacking, waddling duck. The
Mafia, La Cosa Nostra, or some organization without an Italian
name controls the concession business. It is not as though
organized crime is not as American as Mom, apple pie and
baseball but somehow it just doesn’t seem to fit the image.
Here we have a sport that will run out of the business
anyone caught being seen with any member of organized crime yet
every team deals with organized crime every season. Of course I
am speculating, I am guessing, but I hear the quacking and see
the waddling.
I have been watching the response in Tampa Bay to being
awarded a new baseball franchise. I can not imagine such
cheering over the expansion of the business of organized crime in
the area. Of course, even though the price gouging is exactly
like it is in any mob run operation in New York City does not
necessarily mean the concessions are run by the mob.
They could be honest business men not acting like
businessmen.
The similarity in appearance could be purely coincidental.
It could be nothing but chance that the Mafia specializes in
the control of the peripheral functions such as concessions
instead of the basic operation.
I might be completely wrong.
There might be a logical explanation for all of this.
Those quacking things with wings really might be pigs.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

®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 – (2149)
To: All 19 Mar 95 01:29:52
Subject: TYRANNY 2

Judicial Tyranny 2
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1995 <3/18>

To revisit the tyranny of the Supreme Court with a solution
let me remind you that it is clear that when the judicial is held
supreme over the other two even in such matters as Congress alone
could prohibit from its consideration then when we talk of
government tyranny we much include the Supreme Court.
Consider the most controversial aspects of our society have
come into existence by judicial creation. By creation I mean the
very creative use of “who would have thought it applied”
principles to accomplish a specific goal. For example the
discovery for the first time in over 170 years that a person
needs be informed of his rights. I mean the discovery that
courts can control local schools systems to the point of
legislating taxes nearly two centuries of not realizing it had
this power from the Constitution.
Before I proceed, I hope no one still has the fallacious
belief that the Supreme Court is not the federal government, that
it is in some manner the guarantor of individual or state rights
AGAINST other parts of the government. If you still have that
belief hie thee back to Civics class and read again. The Supreme
Court is a branch of the federal government and equal to the
other two branches, equal, not better than or different from.
These “discoveries” by the Supreme Court, that is, the
federal government, are notable in that it is so surprising that
no one, not even the Supreme Court knew these things were true
before the decision. The entire civil war could have been
avoided had the Supreme Court known it had the power to tax
northern states to pay for the freedom of southern slaves. If it
can deal with unequal schools, why not something important?
Now the definition of what is new might be a touch difficult
and the exact way to implement a corrective procedure a bit hard
to define but certainly when the Supreme Court, that is, the
federal government, claims to find something new that was really
there all along it needs suffer some form of review. I propose
some form of review consistent with other new things in our
government.
I propose that when something new is discovered or imposed
that the normal condition that 3/4 of the states must concur
before it can be enforced. If in fact the federal government
does have the power to impose local taxes and determine their
use fine with me. It is clear that 3/4 of the states would
concur that that power was delegated to the Supreme Court. I can
not see how the states would not agree.
If it implicit in the Constitution that an arrested person
has to be read their Miranda Rights then certainly 3/4 of the
states as a very minimum will agree that is correct. If forced
bussing is a power of the federal government then certainly 3/4
of the states will concur such a power exists.
I do not wish to belabor this but if the federal government
via the Supreme Court wishes to do something new that is not
through the legislative process as otherwise defined, and noting
there is no process for the Supreme Court to do other than to
review appeals under the existing law then certainly there needs
be additional review of these new discoveries.
And if there is going to be a newly discovered power for the
federal government then certainly a concurrence in that discovery
equivalent to ratification of an amendment is reasonable.
This would have an additional benefit. The Supreme Court
would, when it claims to be basing its decision upon the Federal
Constitution, would have to clearly spelling out the
constitutional authority where it is contained within the
constitution. And certainly if the same fraction of the states
that created the federal government agree that is what was meant
by the item in the constitution they certainly would concur in
the decision.
Who else but the states that ratified the constitution could
possibly speak upon the meaning of its contents better than the
ratifying states? Of course there are more than the original 13
but in the days when states were being added faster than
amendments could be ratified and as with our more recent 27th
Amendment, the 3/4 rule applies to the number of states at the
time of ratification rather than at the time of submission to the
states for ratification. Thus the current 50 states are the
equivalent of the original 13 in their power to make such a
determination.
In my strange way of looking at things, it seems that any
change in the way things are done in this country that is based
upon the constitution can not be arbitrarily limited to one part
of the federal government to determine.
And leaving aside the touch of faceciousness above certainly
being the court of the final appeal of the law is quite
necessary. That it can determine the constitution independent of
the states that ratified it, telling them they did not know what
they were approving, is not something that makes sense. It is
bad enough ignoring the explicit words of those who wrote and
ratified the constitution as to what they meant. It is not
acceptable that the living successors of those who did ratify,
the states, should have no say in what h

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

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

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * My god’s bigger than your god. He eats Kennelration.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950321 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (2026)
To: All 20 Mar 95 01:18:48
Subject: IQ tests really

Doctor Laufer, I do believe I’ve got it!

Finally the IQ test issue. You will recall I have talked
about the written test and the puzzle test and my continuing
problem with why it appears to measure my test taking ability.

I have a good explanation at this point. All of these
written tests are, these days at least, made up my committee.
That is, different ways to get at the right answer. And that
puzzle test (I do not think I mentioned but my score there was in
the 190s vice the Cattel 163) was by one person. And there the
difference.

The puzzle test had exactly ten puzzles, not seven not
eleven but ten. Already I know something about him if only that
he is missing no fingers. Then he shows me his thought processes
in a set of tests he thinks are incrementally hardly but that I
perceive as incrementally more revealing. Finally when I finish
the last test in record time with commentary and CAN USE both
hands to rearrange the puzzle I have learned about HIS (singular)
person idea of a test.

He set up a challenge between the two of us. I got him.
Not the test, him.

Similarly, a committee test like the rest the problem is
connecting (and I remember this) which of the hard questions is
related the which previous question rather than looking for the
answer. I was looking for the framework of the right right
answer depending upon which committee member wrote it.

In other words, an IQ test is in fact a personal challenge
and in fact, follow on, perfectly honest. I, the test maker,
want to test how smart you are. Obviously, if you are smarter
than me, I can’t test you — the ultimate fallacy of high end
discrimination.

So, I can prove you are stupid, what is my mother’s maiden
name? OK, I am an honest person and I decide to make it fair and
I do not make it personal. I ask you which makes a horse turn
left, gee or haw, as in the WW I army test. So you do not like
that and I make it nonverbal, it is still you against me in that
I have to think up something you can not answer in order to rate
you. The plural you of course in that as my friend I would
include at least on question an OB/GYN could only answer.

Given this viewpoint, it is their job to come up with
questions that can discriminate intelligence levels, I can
explain why I do better on the harder questions. I have figured
out the people who are formulating the questions. And I also
explain why I did best on a test developed by a single person. I
figured out the thinking of the test giver rather than the test.

The puzzle parts were specific and then uncovered for all
ten. The form of “random” lay out was fixed in every puzzle.

This gets us to what I am doing on tests. Beating people at
their own game when they are foolish enough to put their game in
writing. This insight just might ruin my interest in the boards.
Give me on written question and it might take me forever. You
personally give me a dozen and after the 6th you lose. That is
the talent I have, not taking tests but figuring out test makers.

So where does this leave us. We now know what an IQ test
is. It is the ancient art of combat between the test maker and
the test taker. It it very human but then what is human is
absolute in human terms.

So a real IQ test is a challenge, taking away every possible
referent to our common knowledge (my brilliance) you will then do
better than I think you should on this test. The closure on
these tests is a time limit. With no time limit I would like to
talk with the idiot who thinks C is the right answer.

Consider the possible scores range from 1 to 200. Without
the time closure that implies someone at the 200 level agrees
with the test creator and, in the event of a wrong answer, the
test creator, regardless of IQ, is right. Of course I grant that
committee tests are not that simple but the single person puzzle
test I referred to is exactly that issue.

So if you want a real test, (listening, Roger A.?) picking
the greatest challenge and and seeing who wins. Why do the test
talk to the best and why has that always been the EF challenge?
People here who completely disagree have always dumped on the
fools even if they agreed with them.

In any event, the point of the long digression is that your
best IQ test is your self evaluation of how you do in disagreeing
with the best you can find. That is all an IQ test is in the
first place. And that makes the boards another cutting level of
IQ competitors.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A power granted is a power abused.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

+++ююююю r_950323 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1861)
To: Lester Garrett 21 Mar 95 00:34:26
Subject: AUSCHWITZ

LG> Hitler simply cashed in on what had been developing
LG> ideologically for a good long time before he got there.
LG> The ideological seeds had been planted and taken root long
LG> before he came on the scene. I’ll say it again, if you
LG> really want to grasp the magnitude of the Holocaust, one
LG> has to recall that this took place in a civilized country,
LG> on a civilized continent, and was sanctioned by a civilized
LG> people. A land of composers, poets, and philosophers gave
LG> us modern European barbarism. If we fail to understand,
LG> remember, and indeed teach what _IDEAS_ it was that made
LG> this possible in civilized country among a cultured people,
LG> then we shall see it again.

I would also point out that self-proclaimed “civilized” has
also been demonstrated by its very designation to be a
meaningless concept — unless we are adopting some sort of
superior attitude toward those backward non-western europeans.

I find anyone thinking the currently defined niceties of
civilization are some kind of shield against or some kind of
progress or protection from what we like to consider barbarities
to be the ultimate in ignorance of human nature.

The absolute stupidity implied by the “classic” education
and culture having the slightest thing to do with changing human
nature, the very concept that learning can change human nature
leaves me at a loss for words to exceed absurd.

I have no idea what you are trying to say but I can make not
the slightest sense of it in light of the reality you recount.

Cultured and a liberal education is the fine arts veneer on
a typical human being. Rational thought is not included in
anything you have mentioned including philosophy, the lack of
which caused the separation of philosophy and natural philosophy
into science a hundred or so years ago. The pretensions of the
“cultured” are belied by the actions of the cultured every time
they are tested.

I have no idea why anyone would be surprised by WW II
Germany considering the educated and sophisticated and well
educated and oh so cultured people who planned WW I for decades
with the full intention of winning it not avoiding it. And if
you direct your attention to the battlefield, I was worse than
II. And I was the product of decades of planning by poetry
reading, concert going, philosophy reading assholes.

I am fucking sick of “how could this have happened” posts
and I have a dozen or so shock value themes I use to try to get
people to see it. Damn it, why would you think there is any
value to any sort of education when centuries of such education
and collateral reverence for the classic arts and learning shows
there is not the slightest indication there is the least
difference between the educated and the “rabble”?

Stupidity and ignorance and violence and all the rest are
equally distributed among the ranks and the professions. That is
the rule of human nature. The only condemned but promising hope
for a change is the condemned Bell Curve. Do I have to spell
that out again?”

You are holding that education mattered when education was
hereditary with regression toward the norm in full force. Is
that rational? Education when failure was impossible is not
education. Nothing in anything studied was relevant to this
discussion in the first place. Memorize Goethe, that prevent the
slaughter of millions? How? Poetry prevents it? How? Arts
prevents it? Music prevents it? Painting, sculpture, prose, you
name it prevents it? How?

I have no idea where you are coming from but I would hope to
shake you from the delusion that education can in any manner
change human nature.

®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 – (1981)
To: All 21 Mar 95 14:47:16
Subject: BATF REGISTERING GUNS

Knox’s Notebook by Neal Knox

BATF AGAIN REGISTERING GUNS

TREASURY’S Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms is again
creating a central registration system of firearms or at least
laying the foundation for one in clear violation of both criminal
law and their funding restriction.

The last time they attempted to ignore congressional
rejections of gun registration, by formally proposing regulations
to create a registration system in 1978, they lost a chunk of
their funding and were forced to change both policies and
personnel. That was during Jimmy Carter’s Administrati6n; this
time, under Bill Clinton, they didn’t ask, they just did it.

During February ii hearings before the House Treasury
Appropriations Subcommittee, Treasury Under Secretary Ronald K.
Noble denied Rep. Frnest Istook’s (R-OK) charge that BATh
is violating their funding restriction. For many years, despite
BATF’s attempts to remove it, their appropriations law has
dec1ared that no funds appropriated herein shall be available for
salaries or administrative expenses in connection with
consolidating or centralizing, within the Department of the
Treasury, the records, or any portion thereof, of acquisition and
disposition of firearms maintained by Federal firearms
licensees.”

Their round-the-clock program to computerize “semi-truck
loads” of out-of-business dealer records didn’t violate that
prohibition, Noble and BATF Director John Magaw asserted, because
it only applied to dealer records; the records they were
computerizing were those turned in by former dealers.

That’s sophistry! The prohibition wasn’t intended to protect
gun dealers, but the privacy of citizens whose names, addresses
and firearms are listed in those records!

Section 926 of the Volkmer-McClure-amended Gun Control Act is
even more specific: “No such rule or regulation prescribed after the
date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may
require that records required to be maintained under this chapter
or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or
transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the
United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof,
nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearm owners,
or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.

Then why are BATF compliance inspectors making copies of
dealer records, and who paid for their portable copiers? And what
happened to all those “Forward Trace” records BATF gathered on
selected guns?

The long-rumored illegal computerization of former dealer
records was confirmed last May on the ABC Day I television
program, while BATF Agent Pat Hynes was showing host Forrest
Sawyer thousands of boxes of old dealer records at their new
records center. “Right now there’s 20 million records here,” Hynes
said. “We’ve already computerized 60 million.”

In a February 6 letter to Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), Director
Magaw said: “ATF does not have a computer database of gun owners”
and that the agent’s comments were “misunderstood.” Magaw said
what Hynes was referring to was “indexing of records of former
firearms dealers.”

Though that differs from Under Secretary Noble’s claim that
the prohibition applies only to current dealers, note that even
Magaw ‘5 “interpretation” is prohibited by both their
appropriations restriction and Sec. 926, since a gun’s make and
serial number are “a portion” of the records that aren’t supposed
to be computerized, but which Noble says are now being optically
scanned.

Noble got into a heated argument with Rep. Istook, claiming
that the “legislative history is clear” that the prohibition
applied only to current dealers, and that BATF needed to quickly
access dealer records to “fight crime.”

Rep. Istook snapped: “You’re claiming that Congress gave you
a loophole that you could drive one of those semis through!”

Congress intended no such loophole. I was NRA-ILA Director in
1978 when BATF attempted to create a registration system that
would have tracked guns from manufacturers and importers, through
distributors, to dealers-though not (initially) to consumers.
(BATF’s complete plan, which was approved high in the Carter
White House, was to next eliminate private transfers by a minor
change in the law, and within two years make another regulation
change to include retail dealer sales, creating a total gun
registrat ion system within one generation; the documents proving it
still exist, but to protect our sources have never been made
public.)

When then-Chairman Tom Steed (D-OK) was shown what was
happening, his Treasury Appropriations Subcommittee cut $4.2
million (BATF’s “estimate” of the first-year cost) from their
budget and added the prohibition against Treasury using any of
its funds to create a registration system.

Even after the House of Representatives voted 314-80 to cut
their funds and impose the no-registration restriction, BATF
belligerently refused to withdraw the regulations for more than a
year.

lILA Executive Director Tanya Metaksa, who was then my deputy
and spearheaded our study of what BATF’s registration scheme
would really cost, was part of this history and was outraged by
Under Secretary’ Noble’s almost-facetious arguments. She ‘wrote
Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin that gun registration “has
historically been a precursor to … harassment of private
citizens, moving on to registration freezes, and ultimately
ending with the confiscation of firearms.”

Unless immediately stopped, and illegally created records
purged, Tanya wrote, “we will exercise all of our options to
prevent the establishment of a registration system, including
recourse to the courts

After 1? years BATF still hasn’t gotten the message that they
are supposed to follow Congress’ orders, not the other way
around.

AMERICAN RIFLEMAN April l995

®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 – (1982)
To: All 21 Mar 95 14:47:16
Subject: JEWS & HOLOCAUST

AH> I can think of only two motivations for Holocaust
AH> revisionism and/or denial: those folks are upset that Jews
AH> got (and get) so much attention because they were the main
AH> targets of the Holocaust, or those folks support what
AH> Hitler and Co. did and want the historical facts of the
AH> atrocities forgotten or de-emphasized or cast into doubt so
AH> it can be done to Jews again. There’s no positive
AH> motivation for Holocaust denial.

May I suggest a third possibility? To find out what really
happened? You probably have spent little time reading the
responses I get to what I post. I do read them.

I can confidently estimate that 90% of the people who
responded do not have the even the basic facts about the
Holocaust correct. Had I collected them I could post the most
amazing collection of misinformation and mutually contradictory
stories you can imagine. And when I would play the game of
telling two people to agree first and then get back to me (when
they were offering conflicting and ad hoc explanations of what I
was questioning) rather than notice that I would get a response
on the order of, it does not matter which is correct, you are
wrong.

And as Al Gentile put it to me, treating as gospel stories
that clearly make no sense and for which there is no evidence is
playing right into the hands of the deniers. Shouting down those
who question parts of the story can not succeed forever. It is a
matter of time before the truth of one of the absurd claims is
clearly presented as false and that the misinformation of
anti-holocaust types will replace that of the pro-holocaust
types.

Now if some of the things to be questioned happen to be
prominent in the dogma what does it matter? If there are clear
answers to the questions then why not present them? My
experience is that no one has the answers. Why? Because anyone
asking the questions is shouted down so no one spends any time
finding the answers. I have illustrated this many times as you
know.

To my at first simple observation on the inconsistency in
the gassing story I in fact expected to hear a well known
explanation such as that the story I was referring to was
apocryphal and a more accurate recounting is in XXX where it is
described as … I did not receive that response at all. One of
the responses was “informing” me that the gas was some odd
spelling of Zyklon-B and not cyanide. Now there was a real
confidence inspiring answer. (If I had kept notes I might find
he was the same person who insisted traces of cyanide found in
some buildings was proof positive gassing as that was the level
of conflicting responses I get.)

But most responses were claiming I was denying the holocaust
as you have seen. And the terms bigot and anti-semite and nazi
flowed by new wine. I assure you that did not inspire in me any
confidence there was any answer. It certainly indicated the
vociferous illiterate did not know the answer, did not care to
know the answer, and wanted to continue to believe a clearly
conflicting if not false story.

An exchange by analogy would be

“The students at Kent State were throwing rocks and bricks
at the Guardsmen before the shooting.”

“You are denying Kent State ever occurred.”

“But that is what some students said they were doing.”

“You are in favor of the government murdering students.”

That is exactly the kind of irrational responses I get. It
certainly does not give any confidence the respondant has the
slightest interest in the truth but is rather responding as a
propagandist. Any person experienced in political debate knows
exactly this type of person by their response. It is most
blatant in Marxists and Holocaust promoters and, recently,
government apologists for Waco.

Yes, there is a third reason, to get at the truth no matter
what has to be CORRECTED, not revised, along the way.

And again, I can see an irrational response from those who
did in fact lose friends and relatives THAT THEY KNEW. As a
first approximation, the life span in this country is about 75
years. It ended 50 years ago. 2/3rds of the population was not
even born when it was happening. These irrational responses are
not restricted to 1/3 of the population. In fact the loudest and
most irrational are from the 2/3rds that could not possibly have
had any emotional stake in the event.

Enough time has gone by to discuss what really happened and
correct the record along the way. Correcting the record is
revising nothing.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * My corespondant’s body weight is 180 cans of dogfood.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1983)
To: All 21 Mar 95 14:47:18
Subject: NEWS FLASH!

Turkey Invades Iraq!

Hussein Shiites a Kurd!

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * When you are in a hole, don’t dig.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 250/99 101 201 301 470 501 601 701 801 270/101 280/1 396/1
SEEN-BY: 3615/50 51

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

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 3-1995

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials