Documents

Giwer, debate 7-1994

SA> Sounds like the kind of person we need less of these
SA> “daze”. Can’t ya’ll see that Waco was a BIG favor to our
SA> society by BTAF? If the government would just go a step
SA> further and allow us to ALL carry arms, and kill a criminal
SA> in the act, providing witnesses are around that can back up
SA> that so&so was stealing, raping, etc. when killed, and that
SA> there be a provision for the immediate execution of anyone
SA> who kills for “fun”, well, this would be a nicer, safer,
SA> more respectful place to live. I feel the BTAF took a bunch
SA> of losers out of their misery; ended a cycle of losers by
SA> killing the offspring of losers; and, avoided a major
SA> psycho affair a la Jim Jones shuck the kool-aid pass the
SA> ammo style.

You are obviously a blood thirsty slut. But beyond that you
have provided no substantiation for your fantasies.

What is the scope of your hatred? Would you like to talk
about it?

®®юю R_9407 ююЇЇ
+++ююююю r_940701 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1164)
To: Susana Atanasova 28 Jun 94 18:36:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1165)
To: Jolene Post 28 Jun 94 18:46:10
Subject: Hillary the BAM

JP> MG> They are called extended wear. They came out in 1978.
JP> MG> What was your learning curve? Did you have trouble
JP> MG> remembering where to put them?

JP> Nope, had no problem with them……

Neither did I.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Get Janet a fiddle.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1166)
To: Susana Atanasova 28 Jun 94 18:48:10
Subject: WACO

SA> MG> Who breeds human females?

SA> Uh, human males, per chance 😉

What were you bred for, blood lust?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1167)
To: Mark Brown 28 Jun 94 18:49:10
Subject: WACO

MB> Excuse me, but I was just wondering if you could tell me
MB> what exactly was on that search warrant; wasn’t it just
MB> alleging they had illegal weapons? I forget the details,
MB> and you seem to have sources.

The Waco Warrant

What is the problem with the warrant.
The law addresses the possession of parts which can be assembled
(the critical word here is assembled) into a weapon or device held to
be illegal, in this matter explosives and full automatic weapons. In
this regard the law goes further to hold in the case of guns that the
critical part, a fully automatic receiver, to be the equivalent of the
assembled weapon.
The warrant addresses the existance of some parts and the
knowledge, equipment and ability modify the parts possessed to
manufacture an illegal weapon or device. This is not illegal
according to the law. Only the possession of all modified or
manufactured parts or the possession of a receiver modified or
manufactured for full automatic would be illegal. (Presuming the
proper taxes were not paid and / or the proper permits not possessed.)
Thus the fallacy of the warrant is its implication that
assembly and ability to manufacture are the same thing, when in fact
the former is illegal, the latter is not.
As such there was no basis for the issuance of the warrant as
there was no presentation of any law having been violated.

Matt Giwer
19 May 1993
Dunedin Florida

I have had a problem with the items in the warrant for some time
now. If there was illegal intent, what is listed simply does not make
sense. The first example is parts purchases.
Were I outfitting an army I would not be buying parts in the
hopes of modifying them to full automatic parts to assemble later. I
would be buying complete, working guns WHILE I was developing the
techniques to make the conversion.
In an attempt to make sense of what is listed I had the thought
that if I grouped them into related groupings it might make more
sense.
I grant this is speculation. However, with this grouping the
otherwise inexplicable cardboard tubes makes sense.

========

As a result of my investigation of shipments to Howell/Koresh and
Mike Schroeder at the “Mag-Bag” Corporation, Waco, Texas, through the
United Parcel Service, and the inspection of the firearms records of
Henry McMahon, dba, Hewitt Hand Guns, Hewitt, Texas, I have learned
that they acquired during 1992, the following firearms and related
explosive paraphernalia:

========

{As it has been stated they worked gun shows in Texas nothing here is
out of the ordinary for dealers at such shows. The following indicate
NO pattern that would lead to working weapons. Their randomness
suggests they were for resale, and perhaps some were special orders. I
agree the latter is speculation, but the former is not. These parts
do not lead to weapons.}

one hundred four (104), AR-15/M-16, upper receiver groups with
barrels.

Ninety one (91) AR/15 lower receiver units. {Note 104 + 91 = 91
assemblies. 104 and 91 are odd enough numbers to begin with in that I
could see 100 and 90, I could see 1 gross and 1/2 gross, I could see
multiples of case lots. 104 – 91 = 13 and that multiples into
nothing.}

Twenty (20), one hundred round capacity drum magazines for AK-47
rifles. {noting no AK-47s are alledged.} {The drums come in 75
round size. Never heard of a 100 round drum.}

Two hundred sixty (260), M-16/AR-15 magazines. {This is the only
allegation commensurate with the 104 receivers.}

Thirty (30) M-14 magazines. {Noting no M-14s are alledged.}

Two (2) M-16 E2 kits. Two (2) M-16 car kits.

One M-76 grenade launcher. Two hundred (200) M-31, practice rifle
grenades.

Four (4) M-16 parts set Kits “A”. {Which are NOT conversion kits}

Two cases, (approximately 50) inert practice hand grenades.

{Note these parts. They do not make much sense. Were I
purchasing AK-47 magazines I would like to have couple AK-47s
around. Were those kits truly purchased with the intent of
conversion, I would note I had purchased 104 AR-15/M-16 upper
recievers and then buy 104 of each kind of kit.}
{Under the presumption the grenade launcher fits an M-16 and
were I expecting to use them I would have more than one of them,
perferably 104 of them, but certainly more than one as I would
not plan for only one rifle being sufficient to use the 200 rifle
grenades (should they be modified.)}

=========

{Personal use}

Eight thousand, one hundred (8,100) rounds of 9mm and .223
caliber ammunition for AR-15/M-16.
{noting no AK-47 ammunition of which I would expect 2000 rounds
to fill those drums.}
Twenty-six (26) various calibers and brands of hand guns and long
guns.
{Noting with around 80 adults, even 40 males, 26 is nothing.}

=========

{The following I would speculate as being their manufacturing their
own fireworks and fireworks displays. Perhaps fireworks comes under
the BFART charter however illegal fireworks manufacture is not
alledged.}

Two (2) flare launchers {impress the kids if they can get some
flares.}

30-40 cardboard tubes. \
> {rockets}
40-50 pounds of black gun powder./

Thirty (30) pounds of Potassium Nitrate. \
\
90 pounds of aluminum metal powder. > {flash in the air}
/
Five (5) pounds of Magnesium metal powder./

One pound of Igniter cord. ( A class C explosive)

{To ignite the potassium nitrate oxidizer and the metal powders.}

{I note further the citation of igniter cord as class C explosive is
in fact the category for fireworks.}

435 days after Waco
The murders are still free.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Flame on!” — Janet “The Torch” Reno
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1168)
To: Susana Atanasova 28 Jun 94 19:00:10
Subject: WACO – MURDER BY OUR

SA> MG> Do you always favor exterminating undesirables?

SA> I do not ALWAYS anything.

But in this case your blood lust is up. You can not be
blamed. It was bred into you. Have you considered applying for
a job with Reno?

SA> MG> They why did the BATF kill some of them and the FBI
SA> MG> poison the rest?

SA> You mean those that were put in that dangerous
SA> circumstance by their parents ill judgement?

The BATF started it if you remember. And then the FBI
poisoned them.

I will liken
SA> this comment of yours to the following: I go to a church
SA> to fellowship and congregate with fellow worshipers. I
SA> take my family with me. I learn that the head of the
SA> church is a psyho nut.

There is no such evidence regarding Koresh. In your reply
be the FIRST person to cite evidence (not what you think you
remember reading some place, no speculation, not a question to
me) but your EVIDENCE he was psychotic. And if you plan you say
he claimed to be Christ don’t waste the space, provide a
quotation and the source of that quotation. Else you will only
be sharing your fantasies with the rest of us.

SA> such a de- cision would be ill, and I am sure that we have
SA> a system in place for the care of individuals who are
SA> threat to themselves, others, or are unable to care for
SA> themselves…such as BD’s case…

A request similar to the above is made. Facts, not your
fantasies.

SA> I feel the BDs were ALL “5150s” and ,

As above, facts, not your fantasies.

SA> MG> Love your government baby killer. You are a very
SA> MG> strange person.

SA> WHAT A RED HERRING!!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! I got a REAL
SA> laugh out of your desperation on THIS one!!!
SA> LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

I am not disagreeing you are a hebaphrenic. I am only
debating with myself whether or not you are treatable.

Yes, I love my government! It is
SA> the ONLY nation on the face of this EARTH where people
SA> die, and pay, and risk all and GIVE UP all to GET IN… in
SA> other countries all the above is done to get OUT!!!

It poison the children at Waco. Had there been no fire they
would have started dying in three days. But you think that is a
good thing to do.

It is
SA> the parents fault they put their kids in such a dangerous
SA> situation.

We are talking about Waco here. The Government did
everything to them.

I do not blame them. I blame our system for
SA> not getting them put away and the kids sent to good homes
SA> with MENTALLY STABLE adults at the helm.

As above, not your insane fantasies but rather evidence.

I pity the
SA> parents because I believe the were the sick, loser ilk of
SA> our society.

Your fantasy belief structure is to be studied by
professionals not expounded by you.

I have mixed emotions for the kids: Sorrow
SA> because they missed out on life before it started; Relief
SA> because we are rid of that many more future nut cases /
SA> losers. Part of the reason this country is having problems
SA> is that there are less and less PATRIOTIC souls, like
SA> mine! I CARE ABOUT THE U.S. of A.!!!

You are a blood thirsty, vicious, poor excuse for a human
being. And so far as I can tell, living in a fantasy world.

SA> MG> Exterminate the vermin. May I suggest labor camps?

SA> That is your right.

You prefer to simply shoot them down and poison their
children. You are disgusting.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Sometimes the Gov has to kill kids in order to save them.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1169)
To: Susana Atanasova 29 Jun 94 03:12:10
Subject: WACO

SA> LG> asking the both of you to put this to bed — and I mean now.

SA> nighty-night!

What kind of stupid shit response is this?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. — Reno
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1170)
To: Susana Atanasova 29 Jun 94 03:16:10
Subject: WACO AD INFINITUM POSTING

SA> This is a formal and cordial invitation to ANYONE on
SA> ANYSIDE of the WACO DEBATE who was, in fact, THERE WHEN IT
SA> HAPPENED. To give me / us all THE FIRST HAND STORY.

When you stop pretending you were we can get on with this.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord! It’s a cookbook! — FBI manual
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1245)
To: Loring Young 27 Jun 94 21:17:10
Subject: Verbal abuse

LY> PK***
LY> *_*****n****O*^**Oo*************R*P**
LY> *[***
LY> *>:***GO**f*6*[***ZJ*******[*****t****z* *$**z**:***

Repair to bathroom and wash your mouth out with lye soap.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1246)
To: Rick Chadderdon 27 Jun 94 21:17:10
Subject: Verbal abuse

RC> MG> I would rather ask if woman can provoke being beaten.
RC> MG> I note there is nothing that can stop a determined women
RC> MG> from continuing such provocation until successful.

RC> Matt, I would *never* use physical force against a lover
RC> unless physically attacked, and then, only enough to stop
RC> the attack.
RC>
RC> Your contention is ridiculous.

And you are contending that if you were subject to verbal
abuse every waking moment from someone you love you could not
possibly respond to it. If you contend my position is ridiculous
I contend you are inhuman.

RC> MG> What does she get out of it? First, the attention of
RC> MG> friends, neighbors and the police. Second, the courts
RC> MG> automatically side with the poor, weeping victim on the
RC> MG> stand. Third, if the man should want to get back into his
RC> MG> own home and see his own children again it will be on her
RC> MG> terms.

RC> Yeah, I’m sure that that’s what women have in mind…
RC> “Dammit, will you just beat me and get it over with? I want
RC> to really screw you over.”

I know several who do. Why is it you do not?

RC> MG> Can a woman be stopped with anything short of
RC> MG> violence? Court relief from the common scold ceased a
RC> MG> couple centuries ago. In the past we had a recognized crime
RC> MG> that certainly can lead to domestic violence. Today we
RC> MG> have no injunctive relief for it. I am not suggesting
RC> MG> bringing back the scold’s bridle but certainly there is
RC> MG> something between that and being laughed out of domestic
RC> MG> relations court.

RC> Only a fool justifies physical violence with verbal
RC> assault. I’ve never struck anyone in anger over something
RC> that was said.

Verbal assault used to be criminal matter. Why is no longer
a criminal matter?

RC> Anyone who has needs to learn a little bit about self
RC> control…

I can not deal with your inhuman viewpoint. I was speaking
of normal humans.

RC> MG> It would appear only reasonable in law to remove the
RC> MG> presumption of victim status from the woman. It should be
RC> MG> recognized that women can just as easily be the cause of
RC> MG> the abuse they receive. Or shall it continued to be
RC> MG> presumed that no man should ever snap under vicious verbal
RC> MG> abuse every waking moment while knowing there will be no
RC> MG> end until the woman gets the victim status she wants?

RC> I’m sorry. No woman can *ask* for abuse. That’s the only
RC> implication I can see with your post, so I must disagree.

You don’t know enough women. When you have more experience
get back to me.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * First thing we do, we arrest all the hostages. FBI at Waco.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1250)
To: All 27 Jun 94 21:20:10
Subject: The other side

Defense is not Abuse
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <6/22>

While the nation is attempting to avert wars in both Haiti
and Korea the attention of the nation is riveted on O. J.
Simpson. As expected the professional whiners are on the talk
shows talking about spousal abuse. And of course the evil male
is guilty again.
The innocence of the woman is presumptive. It is axiomatic
that a woman can do nothing to deserve physical abuse. I have to
ask, how can a man ever deserve verbal abuse from a woman?
The scold or shrew is a well known character in literature.
How common they are in real life has not been the subject of any
study. A question we can discuss is how many women aspire to
being victims?
Every time you see or read or hear of a woman telling about
how she was beaten you have a professional victim. Can it happen
once? Certainly but those are not professional victims. Those
that go through relationship after relationship with the same
results are professional victims.
Why? Listen to the explanation as to why so many next time.
“I didn’t understand the kind of men I was seeking out.” Note
that makes them even a victim of themselves.
She is now the consummate victim. And when they go public
they get public humiliation and all the pity they can wallow in.
It has to be seriously asked if they sought out the wrong kind of
man or whether any kind of man would do and those men provoked
into violence. Back to the axiom, no woman can do anything to
deserve physical abuse.
I would rather ask if woman can provoke being beaten. I
note there is nothing that can stop a determined women from
continuing such provocation until successful.
What does she get out of it? First, the attention of
friends, neighbors and the police. Second, the courts
automatically side with the poor, weeping victim on the stand.
Third, if the man should want to get back into his own home and
see his own children again it will be on her terms.
Can a woman be stopped with anything short of violence?
Court relief from the common scold ceased a couple centuries ago.
In the past we had a recognized crime that certainly can lead to
domestic violence. Today we have no injunctive relief for it. I
am not suggesting bringing back the scold’s bridle but certainly
there is something between that and being laughed out of domestic
relations court.
It would appear only reasonable in law to remove the
presumption of victim status from the woman. It should be
recognized that women can just as easily be the cause of the
abuse they receive. Or shall it continued to be presumed that no
man should ever snap under vicious verbal abuse every waking
moment while knowing there will be no end until the woman gets
the victim status she wants?

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1252)
To: Albert Quinn 27 Jun 94 21:22:10
Subject: WACO

AQ> MG>AQ> This is my point exactly, People in a situation like that
AQ> MG>AQ> lose their free will because they believe so much in the
AQ> MG>AQ> man that they come to believe every word he says as gospel
AQ> MG>AQ> and then accepts it as empiracal truth.

AQ> MG> Which is completely irrelevant to the illegal
AQ> MG> government actions at Waco.

AQ> It may seem to be irrelevant to you but I think it was very
AQ> relevant to the final outcome.

You may think whatever you wish. If you wish to state it
publically then you will have to justify it or you will be
challenged on it. Opinions can not be argued but they can be
ridiculed quite effectively.

Koresh could have ended it
AQ> any time that he wanted after the BATF was called off.

The government MURDERED TWO Davidians AFTER the CEASE FIRE!
Where do you get this, call it off crap?

He
AQ> was supposed to give up after he read his manifesto on the
AQ> radio stations and he didn’t or any of the other times when
AQ> he was given a chance.

You never heard him say that. You heard the the government
tell you that. What I specifically heard was that the deal was
for his statement to be carried all over the country on radio. I
know for a fact only the first half hour was carried here. Thus
the government violated the agreement even as it stated it. He
was under no obligation as per the government’s own statement even
if it were truly and agreement.

You should learn to think things through.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * We are here to help you, Jude, I mean Mr. Koresh.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1253)
To: Albert Quinn 27 Jun 94 21:27:10
Subject: WACO

AQ> MG>AQ> I still think that that does not happen a great deal.
AQ> MG>AQ> Most of the time when you are injured in your own home or
AQ> MG>AQ> whatever then it is somebody you know or are related to.
AQ> MG>AQ> Besides that any weopon that is in your house can be used
AQ> MG>AQ> against you and if it is stored the way the feds say it
AQ> MG>AQ> should be then you would not have it close enough to be
AQ> MG>AQ> able to use it. Also there is enough firearms stolen
AQ> MG>AQ> every year and if somebody breaks into your home the first
AQ> MG>AQ> thing they are going to take is a weopon.

AQ> MG> We both know you are ignorant of guns. Why do you
AQ> MG> insist upon demonstrating it at every opportunity?

AQ> Why do you insist on attacking me personally?

There is nothing personal about it. You are defending the
government based upon incorrect statements about guns. Therefore
you are either ignorant of guns or you are deliberately lying.
Pointing it out as ignorance is not an attack merely an
observation. An attack would be to assume you know something
about guns and to call you a liar.

Is your
AQ> argument that weak or do you know that I am right.

I know you are ignorant of guns. That is painfully obvious.

I am not
AQ> for banning all guns but there has to be some reasonabble
AQ> compromise in there between what you people consider which
AQ> is to own any type of firearm there is and the other side
AQ> who want all guns banned outright.

Where do you compromise on the freedom of religion?

The truth is that the
AQ> states has all together too many guns floating around and
AQ> too many being manufactured and the government has to do
AQ> something.

Fuck the government. That you have bought into its campaign
of lies about guns only further demonstrates your ignorance of
them.

Even the UN wants to get into the act as a lot
AQ> of weopons purchased quite legally in the US show up in
AQ> other countries and are found in the commission of a crime.

Because the countries sending drugs to this country don’t
like the guns that are mainly NOT coming from the US. LEARN
something about a subject before you write about it.

AQ> I know for a fact that most of the illegal firearms that
AQ> find their way to Canada come from the states.

So close your borders. Where you exist is your problem.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Lt. Frank Drebbin was in Charge of Corpus Crispy OPS.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1261)
To: All 28 Jun 94 00:39:10
Subject: Inquistion mentality

*********** Original To: ALL
* SILICON * was By: MATT GIWER
* DUPE * posted: On: MERCOPUS
*********** Conf: 1438 – WorldTalk-F
———————————————————————–

Burn Him!
by
Matt Giwer (c) 1994 <6/27>
Alternate titles for this article were “Heresy!” and “31
Million Missing, 12 Million Dead.” This is could also be called
“The Confessions of a Heretic.” What did I do?
For decades I had been listening to the stories of the
Holocaust. I believed them. I had faith. Certainly there was
no question of the 12 million or so who died in concentration
camps and there still is no question of it.
Then I found a correspondent who was in investigator for the
War Crimes Courts after the war. His unit accounted for four
executions, two life imprisonments, and a total of 65 years for
four others. He kept his original notes. His name is in the
Hall of the Righteous in Israel.
He did not mention his name being in the Hall of the
Righteous. I uncovered that while checking out his credentials.
He may be mistaken but he is certainly the last person to lie and
from what he did say it is difficult to imagine how he could
exaggerate and not be a screenwriter for Steven Spielberg.
He has also written and lectured on the subject of the
Holocaust. He was telling me nothing new. Nothing he had not
said for years.
He pointed out that no one was charged with gassing at
Nuremberg and thus obviously no one was convicted of gassing
anyone. He pointed out the Rudolph Hoess, the notorious
Commandant of Auschwitz was never arrested but, after he
surrendered, was kept under house surveillance. He was never
charged at Nuremberg.
After his testimony against his superiors at Nuremberg he
was arrested and turned over to the Russians at the request of
General Rudenko and charged with gassing Russian citizens. After
a two day trial he was acquitted of those charges for failure of
the prosecution to produce evidence there was any gassing. He
was later tried on charges of crimes against the Russian people
and hung.
This was the key to the issue. Here was a man purported to
have written a book between the time of his surrender in 1946 and
his execution in 1947. That book, Commandant of Auschwitz,
amounts to a full confession of gassing. And yet the Russians
acquitted him of that charge for lack of evidence.
Not even asking when he had time to write this book why
would not such a confession lead to a conviction on exactly those
charges? It is obvious it did not exist at the time and what has
been published is a forgery.
My correspondent went further. He heard the first report of
gas chambers. It was brought in by a fellow investigator and
the team immediately flew to a camp outside of Munich to examine
the evidence.
The people reporting the gassing were asked to identify the
building where it occurred. They identified four buildings with
no certainty. None of the four were found suitable for gassing
and one of them was the office of the commandant of the camp. As
he said, they could find no credible evidence of any gas
chambers.
He pointed out there were attempts to follow up the charges
as a group of Russian officers had reported they found gas
chambers at Auschwitz. However, the Russians refused access to
Auschwitz-Birkenau. And it is noted their own court had thrown
out these reports in the Hoess trial. Thus the evidence from
Auschwitz is not credible.
It turns out that Lenin ordered the construction of a gas
chamber at Auschwitz some years later. Then and only then were
people permitted to view what Lenin ordered to be built. It is
interesting to examine what he ordered constructed.
This is the famous room, the first gas chamber described in
Kommandant of Auschwitz. In the book it was a spontaneous
experiment carried out hardly a month after the infamous Wannasee
Conference is supposed to have ordered the method used. At this
point in my reconsideration of events I was reviewing some
material from people who were already skeptics of gassing.
It turns out this was a rather small room and yet the
description is of at least 700 people being stuffed into it.
This works out to about three people per square foot. And yet
the description of events holds that Nazis in gas masks walked
freely through the room pouring out Zyklon-B pellets. It also
holds the room was prepared by covering glass windows with dirt
— some glass.
On cursory inspection the story is incredible. Yet this is
the story. And if one asks for better evidence? This is where
the heresy comes in.
I have asked for evidence. I have presented all of the
above and more. The response I have received is, “You are
denying the Holocaust.”
I have been asked how people died and I respond they were
worked to death in conditions of no sanitation and no medication
and on starvation level food. That satisfies no one. I have
been told by implication that a quick death by gassing is worse
than a slow death from disease and starvation.
I have have dozens of people literally refuse to respond to
my requests because they know the truth. When I ask them why
they will not post the evidence of that truth they refuse to
respond.
Have I denied the Holocaust in anything of the above? Yet
almost every response I have received has been a claim that I
have denied there was any massive death of Jews regardless of the
stipulation I have made up front.
This is an interesting matter of mass psychology. If I were
in the Dark Ages and professed to be a Christian and questioned
the Trinity the cry would be “Heretic” and the well done stake
would not be far behind. In the 20th century I can profess to
believe in the deaths of tens of millions but if I question one
particular means of death the claim is that I have denied all of
the deaths.
Deny the Trinity and deny Christianity.
There is no difference.
Now does anyone fail to understand the fervor of Torquemada
or the entire Inquisition? Any slightest deviation from accepted
dogma, any slightest questioning of one small aspect of dogma is
considered the same as denying EVERYTHING.
Watch the responses to this article if you think there is a
difference. The responses will give you a concrete example of
the Inquisitional mentality as it exists today.

* * * * *

Further distribution is encouraged by the author.

1425 San Mateo Dr., Dunedin, Fl. 34698, 813-733-547

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * I don’t call 911.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1265)
To: Albert Quinn 28 Jun 94 02:37:10
Subject: WACO

AQ> TR>If someone wants to give up their free will, then that’s their
AQ> TR>business to do so. That was my point.

AQ> In this civilized world that we are supposed to live in
AQ> then it is our duty to protect the stupid.

Why would you make an entreaty to protect the BATF?

®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_940702 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1347)
To: Pete Bucy 29 Jun 94 15:04:10
Subject: Davidians are sentenяяяяя

PB> MG> There is a thing called the appeal process. If the USSC
PB> MG> finds the same way the FLSC found then all the convictions
PB> MG> will be overturned based upon the manner in which the
PB> MG> warrant was served.

PB> Well, they have the right to appeal, but for the moment
PB> they stand convicted and imprisoned. I somehow don’t
PB> think that their appeals will be successful. Appeals
PB> courts are populated by judges, not emotional jurors.

How could you make that statement? You have no idea what
happened. Why do not you simply give it up until you learn what
happened?

PB> MG> I listed those crimes several times. Perhaps you were
PB> MG> simply asleep? You obviously have no idea what they were.

PB> Perhaps I missed your message. Considering the volume that
PB> Lester has on this echo every day, that is very possible.

Perhaps you are lying. That is more likely considering your
ignorance of events.

PB> MG> You again post from your personal fantasy world.

PB> While I thank you for posting the charges, I am not
PB> living in a fantasy world. Quit to the disbelief of the
PB> Davidians and their supporters, they are the ones who
PB> believe that you can conspire to kill and kill Federal
PB> officers, then expect to be released.

As you know they were acquitted of both murder and
conspiracy to murder charges. Why do you continue to lie?

PB> My reality seems to be running with the verdict, not
PB> with the fantasy of those who don’t believe in the
PB> power that the Constitution extends to the Federal
PB> Government.

You know what the verdict was and yet you lie about it as
though you do not know. Why do you continue to do this? Are you
attempting to formally label yourself a liar?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BBQed Baby Back Ribs, Waco style.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1348)
To: Pete Bucy 29 Jun 94 15:12:10
Subject: Waco

PB> MG> Where did you come up with this red herring? When WAS LHO
PB> MG> required to surrender? He was arrested.

PB> A red herring it is not! The point that I tried to
PB> illustrate was that if the Davidians were not required
PB> to surrender, then would Lee Harvey Oswald have been
PB> required to surrender if he had decided to hold-up in
PB> the Texas Book Depository building after John Kennedy
PB> was shot?

LHO was arrested at a movie theater after being thought to
be the killer of a police officer.

You are obviously ignorant of the best known crime of this
century.

Is there anything you know something about? Or are you
going to claim senility?

I would suggest you consult your personal physician.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1349)
To: Pete Bucy 29 Jun 94 15:14:10
Subject: WACO – MURDER BY OURяяяяя

PB> PB> I don’t remember exactly how this string started, but
PB> PB> I believe that someone said that David Koresh was
PB> PB> innocent of all crimes because he died before the
PB> PB> could be charged with any crimes or made to stand
PB> PB> trial.

PB> MG> No one said that. YOU imagined it. And then you proceeded
PB> MG> to justify government actions based upon unsubstantiated
PB> MG> allegations against him.

PB> Matt, I could go over the past messages, but as I
PB> recall, Kate Secrest said just exactly that.

You can go over anything you wish but until you post the
message you are a liar as is the norm.

The point
PB> was that he was not required to surrender because he
PB> had not been convicted of any crimes.

There was no arrest warrant either, fool.

It was not a
PB> hallucination. This string has been running through
PB> quite a few replies, you should read the entire string
PB> to know what is being discussed.

It is your fantasy until you post messages showing you are
correct. Until then, you are a liar and we all know it.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 2. Obey or die.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1350)
To: Rick Chadderdon 29 Jun 94 17:03:10
Subject: Verbal abuse

RC> MG> SP> So it is your contention that, if the little woman
RC> MG> SP> nags, a good backhand in the chops is just what she is
RC> MG> SP> asking for, right?

RC> MG> Obviously you only read selectively. I did refer to
RC> MG> the man being subjected to intense abuse every waking
RC> MG> moment until he snaps. You obviously did not read that
RC> MG> part or you do not believe it.
RC> MG>
RC> MG> But short of the response you are implying, NO, NO
RC> MG> WOMAN has the right to nag, period. It is a disgusting
RC> MG> characteristic of some women and should be a matter of
RC> MG> shame.

RC> And *you* have no right to post here…

Did LSG die and make you moderator?

RC> Communication, no matter how annoying is *NEVER* grounds
RC> for physical violence.

A nag is not communicating. A common scold is a vicious
person worthy only of the scold’s bridle.

RC> You really surprise me with this viewpoint. Are you going
RC> to suggest now that since “nagging” doesn’t “exchange
RC> information” in your opinion that it isn’t communication?

Of course it is not. It is a form of deliberate torment
with the intention of forcing compliance to whim.

RC> In America, the nation with the Bill of Rights, remember,
RC> freedom of speech is constitutionally protected. Even if
RC> it’s a nagging woman. (Or *man*)

I agree. You are ignorant of the meaning of the 1st
amendment.

RC> MG> Backhanding under these circumstances is your choice
RC> MG> of conditions, not the ones I proposed.
RC> MG>
RC> MG> However, NO, NO woman has the right to nag, period.
RC> MG> Who the hell gave a woman that right? Who is a woman to
RC> MG> unilaterally determine what a man’s duties are?
RC> MG>
RC> MG> He made her into a nag? She made him hit her? It is
RC> MG> the same excuse turned around.

RC> How can you justify removing *anyone’s* right to free
RC> speech just because the speech is continuous and annoying?

Remember, we agreed you are ignorant on the subject of free
speech.

RC> MG> So when is the right to be self anointed judge of a
RC> MG> man’s duties and to run off at the mouth for days at a time
RC> MG> going to be put back into law?

RC> It’s already there, Matt. Amendment 1. U.S. Constitution.

Are you going to learn the subject or are you going to
continue rambling?

RC> MG> Evidence shows household violence is equally distributed
RC> MG> between men and women. You should know that.

RC> Untrue. You should know better than to use a study that as
RC> of yet stands by itself.

The Canadian study has been mentioned in almost all of the
discussions surrounding the OJ case. How have you remained
ignorant of that also?

RC> Perhaps it will turn out that physical *attempts* at
RC> violence will be equally distributed. I hope you can guess
RC> which sex is going to be the most frequently injured by
RC> it.

Tough shit. She starts it. She gets hurt. He is guilty.
Grow up.

RC> MG> But a bitch running off at the mouth for weeks at a time
RC> MG> because he won’t obey her petty, dictatorial decisions is a
RC> MG> sensible, mature person.

RC> No. But she is doing a hell of a lot less harm than the guy
RC> who breaks her jaw.

And, saint that you are, you would never snap even though
that is exactly what she is working on getting you to do.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto “Let God sort out the innocent!”
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1351)
To: Kate Secrest 29 Jun 94 18:19:10
Subject: 4th Amendment Rights

KS> MG> NEW WORLD ORDER MOVES IN HAWAII!!

KS> MG> The Christian Volunteers Information Service
KS> > Reported by Lynn Shaffer

KS> MG> Editor’s note: Is Ivy being made an example of as warning to
KS> >all of us who are on the front lines here in Hawaii? Please keep
KS> >her and this situation in your prayers…

KS> MG> ——————————————————————

KS> MG> Welcome to Hitler’s Germany – 1994 style.

KS> Hell! I guess! This just gets scarier and scarier. I
KS> can’t help wondering how long it will take folks to wake
KS> up.

And people wonder how it happened in Germany? People simply
do not care.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1353)
To: Brad Stiles 29 Jun 94 20:30:10
Subject: Call Me Master

BS> MG> Call Me Master
BS> MG> by
BS> MG> Anonymous (c) 1994 <6/26>

BS> You’ll be glad to know that this piece is very rapidly
BS> making its way around the office where I work. Seemed to
BS> rais quite a few hackles, too, if the number of red ears is
BS> any indication.

It is good for them. Gets the blood circulating.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1354)
To: John Clifton 29 Jun 94 20:33:10
Subject: Lawyer Matt fired?

JC> > He doesn’t appear to want it.

JC> Indeed. We shall see if his pretrial motions result
JC> in his being able to avoid a court appearance.

I don’t see it happening. The law specifically says for
actions while in office. If Congress had wished the law written
differently they could have easily done so at the time.

JC> JC> Who says Trooper Joe is telling the truth? A jury
JC> JC> will have to establish “the facts” of the case.

JC> > He is hardly the first to tell the same story.

JC> *If* she gets to court, she can call them all on her
JC> behalf. It remains, of course, that it is the court that will
JC> establish the facts.

JC> > Telling her the governor said “you make my knees knock” is
JC> > sufficient to make it a crime.

JC> I don’t think so. More likely, his entire conduct would be
JC> deciding factor, not simply an offhand comment.

That would mean he converted the service of the trooper to
personal use. That is a federal crime worth two years and
$20,000 fine each instance. How many times did they do such
things?

®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/Poli-Phil – (1355)
To: Jeff Welch 29 Jun 94 20:40:10
Subject: OLLIE NORTH FOR SENAT

JW> MG>JW> Iran certainly considered the U.S. it’s enemy. They sure
JW> MG>JW> as hell kidnapped enough of our people.

JW> MG> What Iran may or may not have considered itself has
JW> MG> nothing to do with what the US considered it.

JW> So, are you saying that Iran was *not* the enemy of the
JW> U.S. government?

I have never heard of one act of war by Iran against the US.
Perhaps I missed something in the news?

JW> MG>JW> “Liar”.

JW> MG> Synonymous with congressman.

JW> So where are you going with this, Matt?

Shooting down the sanctimony of those who would condemn him
for being no worse than the rest of Congress.

“All Congressmen
JW> are liars, therefore one more—what the hell.” North is a
JW> fool, a liar, a document shredder,

Document shredder? He told Congress he did it in front of
the congressional investigators and they could have stopped him
any time they wished.

and a man who has no
JW> respect for the Constitution or the people of this country
JW> or their wishes.

Are you going to revive the story that he violated the
Boland amendments even though he pointed out exactly how he
avoided breaking each version of it?

If this is what you want in Congress,
JW> then you deserve what you get.

It is what we have now.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1356)
To: Chris Baugh 29 Jun 94 21:00:10
Subject: WACO

CB> MG> Guns are like cars. You can only use one at a time.

CB> Should the government impose a limit on how many cars one
CB> can stockpile?

Look at the idiots who think it is a good idea.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco! Never again! Vote Libertarian!
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 18/102 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246 296 297 298 301 401 470 601
SEEN-BY: 250/701 714 801 901 259/98 99 532 533 377/15 396/1 3603/10 20
SEEN-BY: 3610/4 3615/50 51 3619/25 3651/5 3654/5 3659/2

®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/Poli-Phil – (1357)
To: Chris Baugh 29 Jun 94 21:06:10
Subject: Waco #5

CB> MG> Carrying in a portable radio Wayne demanded, “Listen to
CB> MG> this. They are saying we started it.”

CB> I missed part one of this account. Is it your own write-up
CB> of the situation, or a quote?

My own. A fictionalization. I’ve been trying to get the
flavor of how things would appeared from their viewpoint.

“David? There is a phone call for you in your office.”
“This is David.”
“David, I met a TV guy on my way to the grocery. He asked
directions to Mt. Carmel. He said something big is coming coming
down there but he didn’t know what. I’ll get back as soon as I
can.”
“No hurry, Jim, take your time. Did he know who is
coming?”
“No. He said they never tell cameramen anything.”
“Finish up whatever you are doing and get back when you can.
I’ll take care of everything.”
David returned to the front living room and shook hands with
the “secret” agent. “I have enjoyed our conversations. It looks
like you have work to do outside. Good luck to you.” The secret
agent almost protested his innocence but thought better of it and
gripped David’s hand harder. “Good luck to you all.”
After the agent left he said to Wayne, “There goes a good
man. I don’t think he really liked being a Judas to us. Too bad
he couldn’t say who he works for. I might have saved him if he
had.”
“You can’t save everyone, David.”
“Thanks, Wayne, but when God works through me anything is
possible. Would you ask Sarah to put up a pot of coffee for our
guests?”
“Certainly, David.”
David retired to his upstairs room to pray for strength and
guidance. He offered some prayers almost every hour. It inspired
him. And now the Lord was sending him many converts and he had a
chance to testify for the Lord on camera. The Lord was sending
him a test and a gift. He was thankful.
His prayers lasted hardly ten minutes when he heard
firecrakers outside. He was indigent. The kids were supposed
to be in the chapel for Sunday School. He went down the stairs
working up a mood of righteous anger that he hoped was stern
enough to impress them this time.
Heading for the front door he was stopped by Wayne. “David
there are men outside, lots of them. They shot our dogs.”
Now he was trying to control rage. What right did anyone
have to come onto a man’s property and shoot his animals?
He swung open the front door and demanded, “What’s going on
here.” Suddenly pain in his wrist and then again in his
shoulder. He fell to the floor kicking the door shut seeing
bullet holes appear in the door above him. He crawled away from
the door using his good arm.
“Wayne! Did you see who they are?”
“No. How badly are you hurt?”
“I don’t know yet.”
They heard a loud noise from the direction of the chapel
followed by the screams of women and children.
“That sounded like an explosion, Dave.”
“My God, what are those people?”
“See what happened. Tell Steve to open the armory to the
men. Tell them to hold their fire unless someone is hurt.”
From the top of the stairs Amy was screaming his name.
“Everything will be fine, Amy. The Lord will see us through
this.”
“David! They are shooting at us and the babies up here!”
Now was the time for the calm the Lord had taught him in his
ministry. “Tell everyone to get down on the floor and pray. I
will get help.”
He got to his feet and ran squat to the nearest phone in
Wayne’s office bullets coming through the windows and walls. He
brushed a curtain and it immediately drew machine gun fire.
Getting to the office he heard the sound of helicopters and
the sound of different gunfire. Amy screamed again, “They hit
me, David, they hit me trough the ceiling!” From down the
hallway he heard a man shout, “Enough!,” and the sound of a large
bore rifle.
Koresh blessed his aim and immediately regretted the
thought.
He tried to dial with his right hand but his arm would not
move, numb now, the pain had not started. He tried to turn
himself to use his left and he fell to the floor with the pain in
his side. Lay still and pulled the phone to the floor by its
cord to where he could use his left.
“Tell them to call it off. We told you we would talk. You
didn’t have to do this.”
“Who is this?”
“This is David Koresh at Mt. Carmel. They are shooting at
us out here. You’ve killed my children. Call it off.”
“Who is doing it, David.”
“I don’t know. Call it off.”
“Are you shooting back?”
“Now we are.”
The helicopters were coming back firing and firing through
the roof. Sounds of explosions were making the house shake.
Bullets continued to come through the walls.
The return fire was becoming more frequent. To himself,
“Lord forgive me but I hope we kill them all.”
“You stay on the phone, David, I’ll try to contact them.”
“Who are they.”
“That doesn’t matter now. I’ll be back to you.”
Wayne returned to report.
“I couldn’t stop them from shooting, David. When they heard
Amy scream I couldn’t do a thing.”
“You tried, Wayne, now get your gun and try to keep us alive
until help gets here.”
“David, I think those people outside are the help.”

®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_940703 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1263)
To: Mark Brown 30 Jun 94 02:46:10
Subject: CONSCRIPTION

MB> Your implying that if only 5,000 males suvived anf
MB> there were 50,000 females left, that this race could be
MB> carried on because the 5,000 males could impregnate the
MB> 50,000 women. This would work fine if polygamy were legal,
MB> but since its not, only 5,000 women will get to marry and
MB> carry on the race. The vice-versa is true as well.
MB> Whether we have 5,000 women or 5,000 men left, only 5,000
MB> couples can be formed, so with respect to the propagation
MB> of our nation, it doesn’t really matter if women fight or
MB> not. Let the women fight!

And you are under some delusion that if that odd population
should occur that such laws would have any effect?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * BATF Motto “Let God sort out the innocent!”
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1266)
To: Susana Atanasova 30 Jun 94 02:54:10
Subject: Elders Attacks Christians

SA> TR> She attacked what she called the “un-Christian
SA> TR> religious right” for its opposition to education programmes
SA> TR> in such areas as sex and AIDS.

SA> Bully for her!
SA> It’s about time someone with a high profile came out and
SA> publicly exposed the obvious truth for ANYONE who just
SA> listens and doesn’t stop to THINK! There is NOTHING
SA> “Christian” about attempting to impose life threatening
SA> ignorance upon others, in my opinion. Susana 😉

You are truly psychotic. Certainly terminally stupid.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * All right, Koresh, make my day. — Reno
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1267)
To: Linda Terrell 30 Jun 94 02:59:10
Subject: GOD SUPPORTS ABORTION

LT> Especially when there isn’t a shred of Egyptian history
LT> that refers to the Hebrews in Egupt or that there was ever
LT> anything like an “Exodus” And Rameses II was one of the
LT> better-documented Pharoah’s in history.

Worse than that. There is no suggestion in Exodus of who
might have been running the show at the time. R II was Cecil B.
DeMille’s selection as was Yul Brenner’s command to “remove all
mention of Moses” to cover the lack of evidence and his poetic
license.

This has all been an open secret for at least a century
starting with Napoleon occupying Egypt and the first
archaeologists starting their research. The Brits had more or
less concluded the most interesting parts of it by 1890.

We have commonly accepted history based upon a movie. It is
that bad.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Ruby Creek, Waco; the war has already begun.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1268)
To: Susana Atanasova 30 Jun 94 03:20:10
Subject: Kill ’em ALL!

SA> should all be killed on the spot with witnesses present
SA> willing to vouch for the facts of what happened, and a
SA> penalty of death to anyone who abuses this. Susana
SA>
SA> Cheap, practical, effective.

You forgot the death penalty for people who knowingly post
lies about other people on public boards.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * God Lord! It’s a cookbook! — FBI manual
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1269)
To: Lisa Allison 30 Jun 94 03:25:10
Subject: SECOND-HAND SMOKE STяяяяя

LA> Are you paid by the tobacco lobby? Your arguments are
LA> about as tissue thin as theirs.
LA>
LA> When you smoke around me you are filling your smoke into my
LA> lungs. When the day comes such that you can wear a helmet
LA> that will keep your smoke to yourself then you can smoke
LA> around me. Until that day comes you’re stepping on my
LA> toes, not the other way around.

But as you know all claims that that harms you have been
completely discredited three times in a row, most recently by the
Congressional Research Service. So why do you continue to bring
it up?

®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/Poli-Phil – (1316)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Jun 94 17:57:10
Subject: VERBAL ABUSE

MP> MG> Certainly there was a discussion of masochism in your
MP> MG> course of study. Do you really doubt it happens?

MP> Some women do indeed seem to end up in sad relationships
MP> repeatedly, but does it justify the men beating them ?

Just where did I talk about justifying it? I pointed out
there are women who want exactly that and work very hard to get
it.

MP> MG> You asked the right question first but did not answer it.
MP> MG> Why did she do nothing about it?

MP> In the case in my office she did in fact do something about
MP> it when she realized the situation was out of control. She
MP> got friends to help and left the marriage, but received
MP> threats for years even after a second marriage.

Let tell you about a professional victim. Just so happens
I received a certified letter from a domestic court in New
Jersey. I lived with the woman for several years and we broke up
to go our separate ways three years ago, me to Florida, her to
New Jersey.

At no time did I ever ever harm her in the least. The
letter was a restraining order never to go near her home or her
place of work. Specifically written in is to stay away from the
scene of domestic violence and prohibited from returning to the
scene of domestic violence. She is specifically referred to in
the papers as the victim.

I might point out I have not seen here in three years and
have never been to New Jersey in my life. I have no idea of her
phone number or address and have made no attempt to contact her
in two and a half years. But she got herself an attorney and
went to court and got this order.

That is what I mean by victim. Some people find victim
status very desirable.

MP> No there may be other details, but having you back damaged
MP> and receiving death threats is part of a patern many abused
MP> women seem to be in.

And what was his side of it?

MP> MG> If you will look at the records the “abuse” is equally
MP> MG> divided between the sexes.

MP> I have heard it is more the women who are physically
MP> abused, but that may be because men will feel unmacho if
MP> they complain to the authorities.

It is supposed to be a Canadian study. I didn’t catch a
formal reference to it but it was mentioned on a couple of the
talking head shows around the story.

MP> Gad
MP> maybe you are rightm she might have sent me round the bend.

You avoided spending 20 or so years finding out.

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

From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1317)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Jun 94 18:14:10
Subject: VERBAL ABUSE

MP> MG> But short of the response you are implying, NO, NO WOMAN
MP> MG> has the right to nag, period. It is a disgusting
MP> MG> characteristic of some women and should be a matter of
MP> MG> shame.

MP> Nothing like a good stereotype to set the tone for a
MP> discussion, blacks have a great sense of rhythm, Italians
MP> are great singers, Chinese are inscrutible, Germans are
MP> autocratic, Canadians are great guys to know and fun to be
MP> with !

Think in terms of your college girl friend. You might even
have noticed a message I received from a woman defending a
woman’s right to nag to make a man do what she thinks he should.

MP> MG> However, NO, NO woman has the right to nag, period. Who
MP> MG> the hell gave a woman that right? Who is a woman to
MP> MG> unilaterally determine what a man’s duties are?

MP> How many men does it take to clean a toilet ! None, that’s
MP> woman’s work ..indeed

What is clean enough for a man to tolerate is his business.
If you don’t like the way a job is done or its frequency do it
yourself.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1318)
To: Kate Secrest 30 Jun 94 19:40:10
Subject: Verbal Abuse

KS> From: LORING YOUNG Refer#: NONE
KS> To: MATT GIWER Recvd: NO
KS> Subj: Verbal abuse Conf: (17) Debate
KS> LY>PK**

KS> >*_*****n****O*^**Oo*************R*P**
KS> >*[****>:***GO**f*6*[***ZJ*******[*****t****z* *$**z**:***
KS> >— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘e’
KS> > * Origin: Lightning System III (OS/2) – Stateline, Nv. (1:203/36)

KS> Was this person particularly mad at you to double post this
KS> message, or what? Boy! That’s really some verbal
KS> abuse!<G>

You know how some women are.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “Flame on!” — Janet “The Torch” Reno
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1327)
To: John Clifton 30 Jun 94 21:57:10
Subject: Matt generalizes from the

JC> Should she have left? Yes. Should abused spouses,
JC> female and male, move out? Yes.

In other words would give the woman in this case the power
to torment a man out of his house and away from his family
probably forever. Nothing makes a better victim than a poor,
women left with the children.

Sounds like a real fine deal there for the woman.

JC> Did she know just the right buttons to push to set him
JC> off? Perhaps. Would her pressing these buttons be abuse
JC> or, at the very least, a provocation? Certainly. Does it
JC> justify verbal or physical abuse in return? No.

Does it justify the law not holding nagging deserving the
same punishment as the man would get if he were to hit her?

JC> > If you will look at the records the “abuse” is equally
JC> > divided between the sexes.

JC> This is nonsense. Abuse, particularly physical abuse,
JC> is more typically a male behavior. That women are brought
JC> up to accept abuse and males to dish is out is the
JC> problem.

Sorry, the study only related to physical abuse. I hope to
have a formal citation on the study within a week. It is
Canadian.

JC> I, too, know a couple where the wife alleged physical
JC> abuse that he was able to *prove* he didn’t commit.
JC> Fortunately for him, she was so drunk when she made up her
JC> stories that it was obvious they weren’t cut from whole
JC> cloth. BTW, she also alleged that he molested the
JC> children–another lie he was able to put to rest
JC> conclusively.

And of course there were no penalties for the lies and you
agree there should be no such penalties.

JC> Who would deny there is another side? I’ve seen the
JC> other side, too. What *isn’t* justified is your sweeping
JC> and quite inaccurate assertion that abuse is “equally
JC> divided between the sexes.”

When I have the study I will post it. I do not see how you
missed it. I heard three references to it in relation to the OJ
story.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * W.A.C.O, acronym, Washington Approved Cook Out
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1328)
To: Michael Pilon 30 Jun 94 22:04:10
Subject: MATT’S OJ DEFENCE !!!

MP> MG> However, NO, NO woman has the right to nag, period. Who
MP> MG> the hell gave a woman that right? Who is a woman to
MP> MG> unilaterally determine what a man’s duties are?

MP> Hmmmm wonder if OJ’s legal team have thought of this ? I
MP> wonder if this defence will work ? “He was just trying to
MP> put the bitch in her place ! ”

Rather he was given no legal recourse to the courts for
protection from such abuse. His alternative was never to see his
children again in order to avoid her.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1330)
To: Paul Smith 30 Jun 94 22:47:10
Subject: Nonsmokers’ ally

PS> MG> So what? There is no evidence of harm from second hand
PS> MG> smoke. You know that. It is a problem only in your fantasy
PS> MG> life.

PS> So it IS IN FACT a mish-mash of toxic substances and proof
PS> or no, most people know enough not to breathe the crap if
PS> they can help it.

There is no evidence of harm. You are not forming an
opinion based upon reality. Therefore it is based upon your
fantasy life. Why should anyone listen to you rave about your
unsubstantiated opinions?

PS> MG> Fact is there is no evidence of harm to anyone but the
PS> MG> smoker. You would prefer to believe otherwise. I have no
PS> MG> idea why it pleases you to believe things for which there is
PS> MG> no evidence.

PS> You admit there is harm to the smoker. Non-smokers in a
PS> smoke filled room must breathe precisely the same toxic and
PS> carcinogenic compounds as does the smoker. Logic dictates
PS> here MUST be some harm and plenty of research studies
PS> confirm that fact.

There is still NO EVIDENCE. Why can you not see that? I
don’t give a damn about what your overactive imagination.

PS> MG> The Congressional Research Service did the third and
PS> MG> most recent discreditation of the same group of studies.
PS> MG> And unless you missed the history, the EPA started with a
PS> MG> larger group of studies. That was discredited. They
PS> MG> answered some of the objections with the second study but
PS> MG> then they did not have a case. So they selected only the
PS> MG> studies that agreed with their desired conclusion and even
PS> MG> then couldn’t come up with anything serious.

PS> I’m aware of the CRO’s most recent allegations against the
PS> EPA report however I’m unfamiliar with previous efforts.
PS> Please give me the particulars on those CRO refutations of
PS> the EPA reports.

You should be aware of the previous. And since two reports
on the CRO’s analysis were posted here, one by me and one by
Lester why should I re-post what you have already read?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Let Waco be a lesson to all Americans. Bill Clinton
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1438)
To: Rick Chadderdon 1 Jul 94 14:58:10
Subject: Verbal abuse

RC> MG> RC> Your contention is ridiculous.
RC> MG>
RC> MG> And you are contending that if you were subject to
RC> MG> verbal abuse every waking moment from someone you love you
RC> MG> could not possibly respond to it. If you contend my
RC> MG> position is ridiculous I contend you are inhuman.

RC> I didn’t say I would not respond, Matt. I said I would not
RC> respond physically. If the abuse is as bad as you suggest,
RC> “every waking moment,” and you can’t take it, leave.

Leave the house, the children, come out on the crap side of
a divorce settlement.

Sure, she nags and gets the kids, the house, every penny you
ever make and doesn’t have to put up with you around. Sounds
like a great deal for her.

And that is exactly how you would handle it.

RC> I do not *know* of any for the same reason you probably do
RC> not *know* of any. It is not the kind of thing that people
RC> admit to. Did “several” women confess to you that the
RC> reason they nagged was to get beaten? If not, you are
RC> making conjecture. Quite open to personal interpretation.

One I had the pleasure of watching perform at close terms
for several years. And when she threw a glass at him in the
middle of a tirade he slapped it back in her direction. She
immediately screamed he had thrown it at her and called the police
claiming she had been attacked.

RC> MG> Verbal assault used to be criminal matter. Why is no
RC> MG> longer a criminal matter?

RC> I guess we’ve grown up a little. Some of us.

Your pretentions are overwhelming.

RC> The phrase “verbal assault” is a joke.

It was called being a common scold. You should read a
little more.

RC> There are real kinds of verbal abuse to mention, those
RC> directed at children not mature enough to handle the
RC> stress. Children’s developing self image can be damaged by
RC> an abusive parent, even if the abuse is only verbal.

And you would hold a child has no problem when the mother is
a perpetual nag, bitch, hell on wheels, getting her way by
running her mouth. Very strange.

RC> An adult should be well enough developed emotionally to
RC> deal with words without reacting physically.

“Should” in your overwhelming opinion.

RC> MG> I can not deal with your inhuman viewpoint. I was
RC> MG> speaking of normal humans.

RC> Define normal. The most common? The most *idealized*?

Idealized is your idea of normal. I am talking about human
beings. The usual fallible, imperfect people you see on the
streets every day.

RC> MG> You don’t know enough women. When you have more
RC> MG> experience get back to me.

RC> Experience is partially defined by your personal
RC> interpretation of your actual “experiences.”

When you have met the type of woman I am talking about get
back to me. They are not uncommon.

RC> You are confusing your interpretation with fact. Are you
RC> willing to admit that your statements are *opinion*? I am.

Mine are corroborated by experience.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * FOIA? We don’t need no stinking FOIA!
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1467)
To: Jeff Welch 1 Jul 94 16:29:10
Subject: OLLIE NORTH FOR SENAT

JW> MG> I have never heard of one act of war by Iran against
JW> MG> the US. Perhaps I missed something in the news?

JW> So, are you saying that Iran was *not* the enemy of the
JW> U.S. government?

To repeat

JW> MG> I have never heard of one act of war by Iran against
JW> MG> the US. Perhaps I missed something in the news?

JW> MG> Shooting down the sanctimony of those who would condemn
JW> MG> him for being no worse than the rest of Congress.

JW> Surely we must have *some* criteria for those we elect,
JW> Matt? Griping about what a big bunch of liars Congressmen
JW> are, then turning around and singing the praises of one
JW> more is hardly an admirable, or understandable act.

I have seen little suggestion of standards. Consider 1992
when the first convicted welfare cheat was elected to the Senate.
I would presume that to be the most recent determination of a
Senatorial minimum standard.

I would certainly put North ahead of her. At least North
tried to free hostages and tried to overthrown a Communist
country. She tried to get more welfare money than she was
entitled to.

Rostenkowski re-elected when he is up to his eyebrows in the
House Banking and Post Office scandals. Such minimum standards
for members of Congress are not to be overlooked.

JW> MG> Document shredder? He told Congress he did it in front
JW> MG> of the congressional investigators and they could have
JW> MG> stopped him any time they wished.

JW> Huh? They could have stopped him *after the fact*? How
JW> does that work, exactly?

Not the way he described it. He was asked were certain
documents were. He replied he shredded them. He went on to say
the investigators Congress had sent to his office to go over his
files for evidence were there while he was doing it. If they had
wanted to see the documents they could have asked for them at any
time or they could have reviewed what he was shredding before he
did it.

I do not see a problem.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1468)
To: Susana Atanasova 1 Jul 94 16:40:10
Subject: Waco – Murder By Our

SA> I responded to a post RE: WACO with my *feelings* toward to
SA> content of *that specific post*.

Who gives a damn about feelings when used in place of
knowledge and reason?

SA> You have taken this so far away from WACO that I am *NOT*
SA> going to respond to *any* further “one-liners” from you.

You never had to do so.

SA> Please, go ahead and post away RE: WACo, or any other
SA> debate topic you desire and I will reply as I deem
SA> appropriate.

That was your choice from the beginning. I certainly will
not miss your responses.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1470)
To: David Lentz 1 Jul 94 16:54:10
Subject: Clinton scandal

On 06/29/94 DAVID LENTZ to WILLIAM MERIWETHER on Clinton scandal

DL> You claim William Clinton did not want to be drafted to
DL> fight an unjust war. Please provide documentation, that the
DL> war was unjust. All I am asking for is proof.
DL>
DL> Clinton took great efforts to avoid military service and
DL> then lied about it. That has been proven.

It is more clear that Clinton has completely refused to
discuss his reasons. That is a fact.

When he was in a photo-op with John Majors he said that
being elected had depended upon keeping his actions in England a
secret.

I suspect that is clear enough.

®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_940705 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate/Poli-Phil – (1261)
To: Lester Garrett 2 Jul 94 00:51:10
Subject: WACO

LG> MG> Two Davidians were MURDERED after the cease fire. What
LG> MG> the fuck are you talking about?

LG> Knock it off, Matt. You’re letting your temper get the
LG> better of you again.

Good sir. Unless you have changed the rules lately I am
aware of no rule violation in this message. Perhaps you could
point it out to me?

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Waco lesson 1. Kill them before they burn you alive.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1262)
To: Lester Garrett 2 Jul 94 00:56:10
Subject: Clinton Scandal

Six of your messages got through tonight on a very sparse
mail run. If you have recently changed something, keep it up.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “We execute peaple, not warrants.” BATF Motto
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1300)
To: Chris Baugh 2 Jul 94 17:15:10
Subject: Matt generalizes from the

CB> MG> Does it justify the law not holding nagging deserving the
CB> MG> same punishment as the man would get if he were to hit her?

CB> Let me see if I understand what you are saying here.

CB> It seems to me that you think the law should consider the
CB> following two situations to be exactly the same kind of
CB> criminal behavior:
CB>
CB> 1. Talking incessantly and annoyingly (nagging), and
CB>
CB> 2. Initiating physical violence against someone who has
CB> never placed you in physical danger (assault).
CB>
CB> Is this what you are saying? If not, please explain what
CB> you actually think the law should say in these situations.

That is what I am saying.

It should be a matter of domestic relations court and if it
fails to cease criminal court. It is known to provoke physical
violence. There is no reason it should be permitted to continue
without relief.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1301)
To: Grant Karpik 2 Jul 94 17:20:10
Subject: OLLIE NORTH FOR SENAT

GK> GK> The Rosenbergs: found guilty of treason in 1951 and
GK> GK> executed in 1953….

GK> MG> Espionage not treason.

GK> Actually we’re both wrong. I double checked and it was
GK> conspiracy to commit espionage. I originally got some
GK> incorrect information on that one.

Thank you for checking.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Linda Thompson, loose cannon on deck.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1302)
To: Grant Karpik 2 Jul 94 17:21:10
Subject: Ollie North for Senator

GK> GK> The, so-called, religious right, who are his main backers
GK> GK> are getting real good at getting their candidates
GK> GK> nominated. Problem is, they tend to be non-electable.
GK> GK> The guy has too much baggage and too many ‘important’
GK> GK> folks against him (i.e. the ‘sainted’ Colin Powell).

GK> MG> I am unaware of any particular religious right support

GK> Then you are either deaf and blind or you are being
GK> deliberately obtuse.

It was never considered to be more than one of three major
groups Reagan put together in his coalition. During the last
election they appear to have jumped to Perot.

Myself I do not watch the god channel. If they are
supporting North I would certainly like to know about it. So far
as I am aware he has done nothing in particular to seek that
support. Their recent participation in Virginia politics was
when the present governor was slammed for being a member of it
and in response he agreed and got its support. He did not start
it.

If they happen to be supporting people with similar values
then that is the political process.

All together I don’t see it as more than 10 million votes as
a block which is less than the Black vote that votes Democrat.
And if you want to talk holy rolling fundies you have to go a
long way to beat them. Do not forget that Black candidates
campaign right from the pulpit of churches.

If you have a problem with Jerry Falwell then you should see
a crisis in Jesse Jackson.

GK> MG> present governor was accused of having it. He won easily.

GK> Maybe he wasn’t as much an ass-hole as North is.

North has come back from ex-marine with no job skills to a
viable candidate. Sounds like my kind of person.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1303)
To: Matthew Walton 2 Jul 94 17:34:10
Subject: SECOND-HAND SMOKE STяяяяя

MW> MG> But as you know all claims that that harms you have been
MW> MG> completely discredited three times in a row, most recently
MW> MG> by the Congressional Research Service. So why do you
MW> MG> continue to bring it up?

MW> Yes, but even if it doesn’t damage your health, it’s very
MW> annoying.

Annoying is not the basis for law, particular when it is
such as obvious exaggeration.

The lady that lives next door to me smokes. When
MW> I open the window to get some nice fresh breeze, I get a
MW> lung full of nice fresh smoke instead.

And this is the kind of exaggeration I am talking about. Do
you really expect anyone to believe this story?

I’m not saying that
MW> shse shouldn’t be allowed to smoke, but whether it harms
MW> you are not, it’s not pleasent…….

And people who make up stories like this are quite annoying
also.

®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/Poli-Phil – (1304)
To: Rick Chadderdon 2 Jul 94 17:39:10
Subject: Verbal abuse

RC> MG> RC> And *you* have no right to post here…
RC> MG>
RC> MG> Did LSG die and make you moderator?

RC> Actually, I was made moderator by the same people who gave
RC> you the right to determine what is and is not acceptable
RC> speech.

Which is no one.

RC> Sarcasm is not usually too difficult to detect, I’ll try to
RC> make it clearer next time, just for you…

You made your foolishness quite clear.

RC> MG> A nag is not communicating. A common scold is a
RC> MG> vicious person worthy only of the scold’s bridle.

RC> A nag may not be communicating something you want to
RC> receive, but it is communication nonetheless.

Then you have little experience with women. It appears you
still respond to them as you do to your mother.

You “nag”
RC> people all of the time. Or do you see incessant posting of
RC> information not desired by someone as something else?

You have an N key in the middle of your BM. You should
stick your finger there more often.

Your contrived comparison is not worthy of a person of even
average intelligence.

RC> MG> Of course it is not. It is a form of deliberate
RC> MG> torment with the intention of forcing compliance to whim.

RC> One can *not* *force* compliance to *anything* by merely
RC> complaining.

Tell that to your Mommy.

You have a severe problem with being told that
RC> your opinion is viewed as wrong by some people.

Please post the evidence for that or retract the lie.

I think
RC> that must be the source of your problem with “nagging.”

Long range psychobabble. I am truly impressed.

You
RC> sure give it a hell of a lot more weight than it deserves.

Please post your evidence of that or retract your lie.

RC> What you want is a good, quiet, obedient little woman, just
RC> like in the good old days.

Please post where I have said or indicated that or retract
your lie.

RC> You know, you *could* move to the Middle East. Your views
RC> would be right at home there.

Please post how my views fit in with the Middle East or
retract your lie.

RC> MG> RC> In America, the nation with the Bill of Rights, remember,
RC> MG> RC> freedom of speech is constitutionally protected. Even if
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ^^
RC> MG> RC> it’s a nagging woman. (Or *man*)
~~~~~~~^^^^^^^~~~~~~
RC> MG> I agree. You are ignorant of the meaning of the 1st
RC> MG> amendment.

RC> Actually, I probably understand the *meaning* of it better
RC> than do you. I do not imply that *any* of it’s *intent* was
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
RC> to protect “nags.”

No you do not imply it. You directly state it. You even
lie about your own messages. That is not a common behavior. Is
there anything you do not lie about?

RC> MG> RC> How can you justify removing *anyone’s* right to free
RC> MG> RC> speech just because the speech is continuous and annoying?
RC> MG>
RC> MG> Remember, we agreed you are ignorant on the subject of free
RC> MG> speech.

RC> 🙂 Actually, *you* agreed with yourself.

And then you lied about what you said.

Not uncommon in
RC> your postings. There is no standing Supreme Court decision
RC> that eliminates “nagging” from protected speech.

Another demonstration of ignorance of not only the 1st
amendment but of the Supreme Court.

Until a
RC> type of speech is specifically *unprotected*, (fighting
RC> words, pornography) it must be a protected form.

You really should learn what you are talking about before
you post. You would look less ignorant.

RC> MG> RC> It’s already there, Matt. Amendment 1. U.S. Constitution.
RC> MG>
RC> MG> Are you going to learn the subject or are you going to
RC> MG> continue rambling?

RC> Actually, Matt, why don’t *you* crack open a book on
RC> Constitutional law? You might actually learn a thing or
RC> two.

I have.

RC> MG> The Canadian study has been mentioned in almost all of
RC> MG> the discussions surrounding the OJ case. How have you
RC> MG> remained ignorant of that also?

RC> Since when does the fact that *one* study makes the rounds
RC> make it correct? And since when do you care *what* studies
RC> the media uses to support whatever point of view they
RC> currently want to push on us?

If you have any other studies I would certainly like to hear
of them. All you have is your opinion to present at this point.
Just how many cases of this are you personally familiar with?

RC> You are becoming quite inconsistent in your arguments.
RC> You’ll use whatever information agrees with your viewpoint,
RC> whether it comes from a source you have previously accepted
RC> as reliable or not.

Post contrary information. Take all the screens you need.
(Anecdotal is not information.)

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Children of Waco, I feel your pain. Bill Clinton
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1305)
To: Rick Chadderdon 2 Jul 94 17:58:10
Subject: Verbal abuse

RC> Matt, is it possible for you to discuss a subject without
RC> turning it into an attack on the “ignorance” of your
RC> opponent?

You began it with a message attacking me. You went on to
demonstrate your ignorance of most of what you were talking about.
Do you have a problem if I point it out? After all, once you
realize the areas of your ignorance you can correct them.

If not, I can’t help but think that your own
RC> position is not a secure as you want us to believe.

I never accused you of thinking.

RC> MG> RC> Perhaps it will turn out that physical *attempts* at
RC> MG> RC> violence will be equally distributed. I hope you can
RC> MG> RC> guess which sex is going to be the most frequently injured
RC> MG> RC> by it.

RC> MG> Tough shit. She starts it. She gets hurt. He is
RC> MG> guilty. Grow up.

RC> I am not the juvinile here. The guy who can’t (read:
RC> doesn’t *want* to) control himself well enough to avoid
RC> physical violence *is*.

And there you are, the perfect person with not one weakness.
You could never lose control no matter how many years it goes
one.

RC> MG> RC> No. But she is doing a hell of a lot less harm than the guy
RC> MG> RC> who breaks her jaw.
RC> MG>
RC> MG> And, saint that you are, you would never snap even
RC> MG> though that is exactly what she is working on getting you
RC> MG> to do.

RC> If that is what this particular woman *is* working on,
RC> (granting you that silly precept for the moment) aren’t you
RC> one hell of an idiot for giving her exactly what she wants?
RC>
RC> I’m not a saint. Merely an adult. Matt, children have no
RC> place telling people to grow up. Are you a child?

Have you stopped beating your wife? Is this why you protest
so much? (This long range psychobabble is fun. I should have
tried it earlier.

RC> One sign of childhood is the inability to deal well with
RC> emotional stresses. Lashing out at someone who called you a
RC> name, for instance.

You have a good babble worked out. Keep up the good work.

—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Janet Reno, the third best woman for the job.
— FidoPCB v1.5 beta-‘j’
* Origin: MercOpus * 10 Lines/12 GB/1500 Confs * 813-321-0734 (1:3603/20)
SEEN-BY: 250/99 201 204 224 240 244 246

®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/Poli-Phil – (1306)
To: Chris Baugh 2 Jul 94 17:59:10
Subject: WACO

CB> CB> Should the government impose a limit on how many cars one can
CB> CB> stockpile?

CB> MG> Look at the idiots who think it is a good idea.

CB> My original comment wasn’t serious; I didn’t know that
CB> anyone actually did believe there should be a limit on the
CB> freedom of individuals to purchase as many cars as they
CB> wanted, as long as they didn’t pile up heaps of old junkers
CB> in the front yard.

I did not intend to make a direct response.

Think about it. Lets say you did want to do some form of
mass murder. You have all the money you need to buy guns and
ammunition. Would you buy a dozen guns? Why? If you want to
do serious damage you get one rifle, possibly one handgun and all
the ammunition you can carry.

That is the way to do it. What possible problem could there
be with an arsenal? One man, one rifle. The rest of them were a
waste of money. But it is certain Brady II is going have have
some sort of arsenal provision. They are going to scare people
with it.