TB> > BK> From what I have seen of the Citadel in this case I would
TB> > BK> say no graduate of that school would be likely to be fit
TB> > BK> to serve as an officer in the armed forces of the United
TB> > BK> States.
TB> > That explains it. You are ignorant of the military. I
TB> > should have known.
TB> Matt, I wouldn’t go throwing stones,
You are wise not to do so.
as far as knowledge of
TB> the military is concerned you appear to be standing in the
TB> middle of a glass house.
Let he who without knowledge cast the first stone.
®®юю R_9509 ююЇЇ
+++ююююю r_950902 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1077)
To: Tim Boothby 28 Aug 95 16:22:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Have you seen any armed militiamen today?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1078)
To: Turiyan Gold 28 Aug 95 16:13:10
Subject: Do _NOT_ Send Encoded Msg
TG> -> I don’t intend to but they show up so regularly on other
TG> -> conferences without comment that it appears you are the
TG> -> only one enforcing this rule.
TG> Unfortunately, PGP says that a message signed with a key is
TG> a PGP message. It is really only the fingerprint of the
TG> persons pgp key. A lot of moderators get into a fit if
TG> pepole sign their message. They get the impression that
TG> the key contains secret messages. Some echos allow signed
TG> messages. But, most dont.
The subject here is UUENCODEd posts. Encoded versus
encrypted is a second part of the issue. As for signed, even the
keydrop conference advised not to bother unless it had a purpose.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “I take full responsibility” means “Don’t blame me.” J. Reno
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1079)
To: Bob Klahn 29 Aug 95 16:23:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT
BK> TB> 2. Shannon should have been denied access due to the fact
BK> TB> that she never met the physical requirements for
BK> TB> admission to the cidatel or the military. Which branch
BK> TB> of the Armed Forces or their Academy will accept an
BK> TB> individual that is 20 pounds (by their own admission)
BK> TB> overweight (for the cidatel or the Army).
BK> I don’t know what the standards are now. When I went in
BK> there were people in basic training with me who were more
BK> overweight than that.
When there are more volunteers than are needed, they can
afford to be selective.
BK> You are correct on the first sentence, *IF* the Citadel
BK> had any crediblitly. OTOH, had they any real intention of
BK> considering her on the basis of her qualifications they
BK> would have processed her in the first place and told her
BK> what she had to do to be accepted. As it is they had no
BK> intention of accepting her.
They knew she could not pass their standards simply because
she was a woman. She knew she could not pass their standards
because she was a woman. That is why she petitioned the courts
to have the standards lowered for her.
What is there about that you don’t understand?
BK> You picked a poor example. Patton might have been a great
BK> strategist or tactician, but I don’t think much of him as
BK> a leader.
Rommel did.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The truth being extreme does not make it untrue.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1080)
To: Tim Boothby 29 Aug 95 00:31:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT
TB> > The commandant at West Point once said something like, they
TB> > teach honor there. That is the only thing that really
TB> > matters. On that basis no graduate of the Citadel could be
TB> > considered fit to be an officer in the armed forces of the
TB> > United States.
TB> Just a few observations here…
TB> 1. I personally find the entire situation silly, the
TB> Cidatel has never adaquately described the reasons for
TB> their male only stance.
Their objective is to train soldiers. That would appear
sufficient grounds for male only.
TB> 2. Shannon should have been denied access due to the fact
TB> that she never met the physical requirements for
TB> admission to the cidatel or the military. Which branch
TB> of the Armed Forces or their Academy will accept an
TB> individual that is 20 pounds (by their own admission)
TB> overweight (for the cidatel or the Army).
If you believe only 20 pounds then you don’t believe your
eyes. When they make the docudrama of it, Roseanne can play her
part.
TB> 3. I have served with officers that graduated the cidatel,
TB> and then either the Air Force Academy or a civilian
TB> college. You will find no better officers anywhere.
TB> 4. Some of the best officers that this nation has ever been
TB> produced have attended the Cidatel and then West Point.
TB> George Patton is the most readilly recognizeable.
TB>
TB> 5. When trying to change tradition that is backwords and
TB> inbred, you will have to deal with people and
TB> institutions that are equally backwords and inbred.
What is backwards about physical standards? The only reason
she was allowed even the three hours she got was because there
was a court order requiring her to be let in regardless of
physical standards including weight.
The fact remains there is no evidence in any form that she
at any time wanted to be in The Citadel. All of the evidence
points to her wanting the notoriety of the court case.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Hookers on phonics, for those who don’t want to spell.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1081)
To: Michael Pilon 29 Aug 95 00:39:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT
On 08/24/95
from MICHAEL PILON
to BOB KLAHN
on FAULKNER WIMPS OUT
in Fido-Debate
MP> -=> Quoting Bob Klahn to Matt Giwer <=-
MP> MG> And the poor girl was worn down by all the legal
MP> MG> matters. Anyone ready to believe this bull?
MP> No the macho Military types at this so called Academy
MP> rallied around her to offer support to a fellow officer as
MP> anyone would expect. I for one will not hear of such talk
MP> from Matt ;0
Who are you talking about? She was a knob, the scum of the
earth, not a fellow officer.
MP> BK> Yes, that and the fact that she had to face 4 years alone.
MP> BK> Read your history of early black cadets at West Point. They
MP> BK> faced the same thing.
MP> Hmmm, something about the Officer’s ethos comes to mind .
MP> Shurely service of country and not self serving ;0
I have no idea of the traditions of military academies in
Canada. Down this way, they do not become officers until
graduation. They don’t become better than the scum of the earth
until their second year.
MP> MG> Yes, you do believe her story? Then she was incapable of
MP> MG> dealing with being a cadet.
MP> But the overwhelming support she received may have helped ;0
She got all the support every knob gets at The Citadel.
Making it is up to the knob. It is the job of the student body
to weed out those who can’t take it.
MP> BK> From what I have seen of the Citadel in this case I would
MP> BK> say no graduate of that school would be likely to be fit to
MP> BK> serve as an officer in the armed forces of the United
MP> BK> States.
MP> As a former Army officer , albeit of a froeign country I
MP> agree. They have made the name of their school an
MP> international laughing stock. Pure scum.
On what grounds? That a blimp who went to court to both get
in and then to be excused from the standards should be considered
a desirable classmate? What is it you think she wanted other
than the notoriety of the court case?
Of course an officer in the medical corp would have
different standards. What about if women were in the corp
because a judge ordered they could not be required to be on duty
more than 40% of the time men were on duty and otherwise would
not be officers?
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Koresh, the Pope, what is the difference?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1082)
To: All 29 Aug 95 21:01:10
Subject: Double standards
************* Original From: SETH WILLIAMSON
* stolen * To: MATTHEW RUSSOTTO
* post * Date/Number: 08/27/95
************* On: GIFFER – 0302 – Politics
PLEASE address responses to ALL
———————————————————————–
Matthew Russotto wrote
SH> Shannon Faulkner has shown that she is incapable of enduring “Hell
SH>*Week” […]
SW> “Fat” doesn’t quite convey the reality. I met the cow when I
SW> interviewed her nearly two years ago. Biggest impression of mine a
SW> the time was, “How can this bitch possibly believe she can hack hel
SW> week with this lard ass of hers?” Supposedly now she is only 20
SW> pounds overweight, but when I saw her she was EASILY 50 pounds over
SW> I mean, she is a BIG mama. And not exactly cover material for Cosm
SW> either.
MR>*More to the point, not cover material for _Shape_.
Indeed.
Did you realize that the upperclassmen were forbidden to talk to her in
the way they addressed the other first-year cadets? They were expressly
forbidden to tell her they didn’t believe she could accomplish certain
tasks, or to question her ability in any way.
Can you believe this? I was a cadet at Texas A&M, and the first thing
you learn is that the serge-butts and the leather-legs are screaming
into your face that you’re scum, you’re shit, you’re the sorriest excuse
of a human being they’ve ever seen, not only are you not material for
the corps, you don’t even deserve to live, etc. etc. There was one
particular serge-butt at A&M who was continually screaming in my face
that he was PERSONALLY going to see to it that I never made it through
my fish year because he could not tolerate the thought of slime like me
in the uniform of an A&M cadet.
This is all part of the military experience. But not only was Shannon
getting a double standard on the physical requirements, her tender ego
required that the upperclassmen not subject her to the same shit
everybody else has to undergo.
The military, feminist-style.
****[Internet: [email protected]]
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, The Man From Hot Springs.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1083)
To: Linda Moore 29 Aug 95 01:00:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUTяяяяяяя
LM> BK> I do believe the facilities were:
LM> BK>
LM> BK> A) because she was female and sleeping with the men would
LM> BK> be unacceptable to the school as well as to her.
LM> BK>
LM> BK> B) for her protection. Not many of the male candidates
LM> BK> could expect to be assualted during the night.
LM> There was an alarm system in her room as well, that would
LM> sound off if the door were forced. There had been threats,
LM> even though the school denied it, which isn’t surprising
LM> with the number of rapes on college campuses that are
LM> ignored by the administration.
You mean she couldn’t kick a rapist’s ass? If not, case
closed.
LM> BK> Real equality means women have the same right to fail that
LM> BK> men do.
LM> Yes, and though I don’t read much about them in the
LM> messages attacking the woman, there WERE maleS who didn’t
LM> cut that mustard, either, and I doubt they had the same
LM> bigoted mind-set working against THEM as she had.
4 men the first week and 2 the second were washed out. The
blimp quit after three hours.
LM> BK> Look at the way she was treated. It was exactly like black
LM> BK> cadets at the Military academies were when the first ones
LM> BK> were admitted.
LM> Yep. Who the “Minority” is depends on where you are at a
LM> given moment in time, and who the “Majority” is in that
LM> same place and time. Very good point, Bob.
As I remember the story, those blacks didn’t quit after
three hours and did not demand or expect special protection.
LM> BK> The commandant at West Point once said something like, they
LM> BK> teach honor there. That is the only thing that really
LM> BK> matters. On that basis no graduate of the Citadel could be
LM> BK> considered fit to be an officer in the armed forces of the
LM> BK> United States.
LM> Not after the way they openly reveled in her leaving
LM> (caught on camera), smiled in her face with reassurances
LM> when she went to the infirmary, then showed themselves as
LM> the lying hypocrites they really are.
You were able to recognize the faces to determine they were
the same people? You have a real sharp eye.
The commandant was
LM> just as bad. She never had a chance with those people.
It is the job of the commandant to set standards and the job
of the cadets to live up to them. She had several court orders
exempting her from those standards and lots of special treatment
just because she was a poor, fragile woman.
You appear to be under some impression that a knob is
supposed to retain personal dignity. It is the job of a knob to
realize he or she is so low he or she has to look up to see the
scum of the earth.
Said knob is required to survive hell week without quitting.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The perimeter can’t be controlled.L. Thompson is coming.Reno
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1084)
To: Linda Moore 29 Aug 95 01:09:10
Subject: Faulkner wimps outяяяяяяя
LM> KA> And in doing so, she reinforced that very premise which she
LM> KA> set out to destroy: that “girls” just can’t tough it out,
LM> KA> that they can’t take the strain, and that when the job gets
LM> KA> nasty it’s better for them to go play teacher or mommy or
LM> KA> some other traditional “girl role,” just like Faulkner’s
LM> KA> doing.
LM> For anyone who finds it easy to believe the premises you
LM> list above, they’d have to dismiss the many military
LM> veterans who happen to be women, myself among them. Let’s
LM> not make 1 “failure” a legacy, ok?
Are you saying you were one of those who met all the same
minimum requirements as men? Or did you exceed those? Did you
qualify as a ranger?
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * At Salem, people confessed to being witches, proving …?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1085)
To: All 29 Aug 95 15:37:10
Subject: imporant message
>>> This message requires Microsoft Windows to read.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Put taggants in bullshit now.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1086)
To: All 28 Aug 95 20:34:10
Subject: Wages of sin
What does learning from one’s mistakes mean?
What does a teenager learn from getting pregnant and having
an illegitimate child?
How to survive on the welfare system.
Is that a penalty or a reward?
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If Reno were a real general, she would get a section eight.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1087)
To: Linda Terrell 29 Aug 95 00:56:10
Subject: Faulkner wimps out
LT> KA> My guess: she expected to be exempted from *this*
LT> KA> requirement, too. After all, she’d had a pretty good
LT> KA> pattern of exemptions set up, and why shouldn’t she think
LT> KA> maybe they’d cut her some slack on this one as well?
LT> YOur *guess* Can you prove that *she* stayed in the
LT> infirmary of her own volition or because she was *ordered*
LT> to stay there?
If she was ordered to stay then there is no question that it
took her 4 days and 21 hours to recover from 3 hours of physical
activity. Of course, she claims to have prepared in an air
conditioned gym some where. If you believe that you haven’t seen
her.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The Constitution is not a technicality.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
+++ююююю r_950905 ююююю+++ — *FIDO AUTO* —
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (984)
To: Bob Klahn 31 Aug 95 17:02:10
Subject: IRRELEVANT AND IMMATE
BK> BK>> You forget, like anyone accused of a crime, they would
BK> BK>> not have to prove their innocence, the prosecutor would
BK> BK>> have to prove guilt.
BK> MG> When is the trial scheduled? No trial? Too bad the
BK> MG> prosecution will not get an opportunity to introduce their
BK> MG> testimony from the Davidian trial against them.
BK> And if they are found not guilty, who do they sue for what
BK> they’re put through?
When you testify on company time the employer does the
compensation. It is called a paycheck. If they don’t like the
job they can find another. It comes with the territory.
`If they want to try to make a case for malicious
prosecution, they have a well known venue. The Davidians and
Weaver have it available to them also.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * The truth being extreme does not make it untrue.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (985)
To: Lester Garrett 31 Aug 95 07:52:10
Subject: REVELATION
LG> MR> At the end of the 1000 years, Satan (the UN) will
LG> MR> seduce the nations of the world, prior to Armageddon —
LG> MR> rv.20:7-15.
LG> BK> Have you been listening to Jimmy Swaggart?
LG> BK> BTW, I’m going to do a “search” of my online Bible
LG> BK> resource. If I don’t find the UN mentioned in the Bible I’m
LG> BK> going to be very disappointed in you.
LG> _
LG> ( |
LG> ___\ \
LG> (__() `-|
LG> (___() |
LG> (__() |
LG> (_()__.–|
Ethnic cleansing = UNclean.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Bill Clinton, The Man From Hot Springs.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (986)
To: Bob Klahn 31 Aug 95 17:10:10
Subject: WACO HEARINGS 01
BK> BK>> If he had not shot and killed 5 agents,
BK> MG> Perhaps you would be the first to tell us of evidence
BK> MG> that Koresh shot anyone? None of the nine conflicting
BK> MG> stories told under oath by the BATF at the trial claimed he
BK> MG> shot anyone.
BK> He’s responsible for what is done by people serving him.
Two attorneys observed and sworn to evidence that six of the
nine conflicting stories told in court were false in addition to
the court testimony showing at least one sworn statement was a
lie.
The 911 tapes clearly indicate they did not initiate the
shooting.
Koresh told the FBI that the BATF tape would show who shot
first but unbeknownst to him, it was “blank.”
Not one of the survivors accused of shooting was found
guilty of shooting.
The prosecution star witness testified there was no
conspiracy.
You are making it up as you go along.
BK> BK>> if he had not been given an opportunity to surrender,
BK> MG> Surrender to people who had, so far as he could
BK> MG> determine, killed six people without provocation? You are
BK> MG> aware the prosecution could not establish who shot first
BK> MG> are you not? Or do you know something the prosecution does
BK> MG> not know?
BK> I tried watching a rebroadcast of some of the Waco
BK> hearings, but couldn’t bear to sit through the speeches. I
BK> did, however, manage to last long enough to hear a part of
BK> it. The part of the summary that said three reporters on
BK> the scene said the Davidians fired first.
I wonder where these witnesses were at the court trial and
why the jury did not believe them. Can you deal with that?
Also, one of the
BK> Davidians testified at the trial that they laid an ambush
BK> for the agents.
This is what we call pathetic. There was only one Davidian
who testified and she testified there was no conspiracy
whatsoever. The foreman of the jury said afterward that it was
her testimony that demolished the prosecution claim of a plan to
kill anyone.
A single order would have constituted a conspiracy. The
prosecution testimony was that there was none.
BK> BK>> had he tried to surrender and had his surrender refused,
BK> BK>> then his civil rights would have been violated.
BK> MG> Had there been the proper warrant and proper service
BK> MG> then the rights of nearly 100 people would not have been
BK> MG> violated. But you know that.
BK> Any warrant served by police officers who aren’t being
BK> shot at would have done. The question of whether it was
BK> proper could have been argued in court. If they did not
BK> accept service of the warrant they have no claim on the
BK> grounds the warrant was improper.
As we know from testimony, they did not announce possession
of a warrant at any time nor was there ever any intention to do
so. Yet the announcement of the warrant is required by federal
law. If you violate the law and die, complain to your boss.
BK> BK>> As none of these things are true, his civil rights weren’t
BK> BK>> violated. At least, not by the things you cited.
BK> MG> Gee they could have just knocked on the door instead
BK> MG> of coming in shooting and throwing grenades as is a matter
BK> MG> of sworn BATF testimony at the trial. But you know that.
BK> I do not know that. Please cite your source for that info.
The SWORN as in UNDER OATH as in PENALTY OF PERJURY
testimony at the trial of the surviving Davidian hostages. It
comes from the San Antonio and Austin papers. Did you miss them
when they were posted here? Want to read them again?
BK> If there was any evidence of the ATF launching an assualt
BK> with grenades and gunfire instead of properly serving the
BK> warrant there would be no problem with the hearings at
BK> all.
They swore they did, in court, as in, so help me god.
If there is such evidence please present it,
BK> otherwise it would seem you are smearing honourable police
BK> officers who died in the line of duty.
Rather they defended the tactics as necessary. Maybe the
folks who posted the newspaper articles here lied. If that
happened then I have been deceived. But there was this
recounting of some testimony claiming that grenades were really
“diversionary devices.” I am certain that blowing your hand off
would divert even you.
BK> BK>> Their civil rights were trampled on by the Branch
BK> BK>> Davidians. Even if the govt bungled it, the violations
BK> BK>> were committed by the Davidians.
BK> MG> Your statement is contrary to the evidence at the
BK> MG> trial and the findings of the jury.
**
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: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (987)
To: Bob Klahn 31 Aug 95 17:44:10
Subject: WACO HEARINGS
or not
BK> proven guilty? One indicts the government, the other leave
BK> the Davidians suspect.
There is nothing other than, “not proven guilty.” That is
the way our legal system works. There is no finding of innocent
as innocence does not have to be proven or even suggested. The
burden of proof is on the prosecution and failing that, not
guilty.
BK> BK>> SD> its ugly head. Remember how Branch Davidians were the
BK> BK>> SD> “Whackos in Waco?” They were religious nuts — a cult.
BK> BK>> SD> Notice how they were
BK> BK>> All that appears to be true.
BK> MG> Only if you hold religious belief to be a insane. I
BK> MG> do hold all religious belief to be insane. How about you?
BK> Nope, but I hold the Davidians to be whackos. Insane is a
BK> legal term, not a medical one. (Whacko isn’t a medical
BK> term either, but conveys my meaning clearly.)
I do not find “whacko” in the DSM. What does it mean to
you really? Believing the Pope speaks for a dead Jew? That
Joseph Smith had magic glasses? That Mohamet wrote what an angel
wrote? That Jews were ever in Egypt? Get your whackos straight
before you make accusations.
BK> BK>> Neither would be a drug dealer just passing through, a
BK> BK>> car thief going south with his stolen vehical, a murderer
BK> BK>> or thief or other criminal on his way to a vacation. You
BK> BK>> catch the criminals where you find them.
BK> MG> There is no evidence of any criminal activity nor is
BK> MG> any alleged in the warrant. You are bullshitting.
BK> No criminal activity alleged in the warrant?
That is correct.
Do they now
BK> issue warrants “to search property specified to determine
BK> what lawful activities are going on at said property”? No
BK> evidence of criminal activity? Quite a bit of testimony to
BK> the contrary on that. The local sheriff is the original
BK> source of that information, as I have seen reported.
BK> Seems the bovine excrement is on your end this time.
There is not a bit of what you claim in the warrant. Why
are you saying otherwise? Do you need a fresh copy of it? I
will repost it if you will quote the criminal allegations. Are
you willing?
BK> BK>> No, nobody got what they deserved. Koresh got much less
BK> BK>> than he deserved. He should have survived to face
BK> BK>> execution. That way he could have all that time to look
BK> BK>> forward to it.
BK> MG> As with all the people accused of murder and
BK> MG> conspiracy to murder, and he would have been one of them,
BK> MG> Koresh would have been acquitted of the charges. You have
BK> MG> to keep in mind they
BK> If he had survived he might have faced trial for all his
BK> followers who died.
As he was murdered survival would mean that he survived the
attempt to murder him. It is difficult to put such a person on
trial. How would you do it?
BK> MG> were all found innocent of murder and since the primary charge
BK> Not guilty. Not really the same thing.
It is in the US legal system. What country are you calling
from?
BK> MG> was conspiracy AND the government’s star witness testified
BK> MG> there was no conspiracy, the case fell apart.
BK> MG>
BK> MG> In other words, you are making claims the government
BK> MG> failed to prove in court. You are not going to be
BK> MG> considered unless you present better evidence than the
BK> MG> government presented.
BK> You are making claims with no evidence to back them up.
BK> Unless you have better evidence you are not going to be
BK> considered.
I am stating there was not sufficient evidence to convince a
jury. If you reject the jury system, no one is innocent.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * “I take full responsibility” means “Don’t blame me.” J. Reno
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1002)
To: Bob Klahn 31 Aug 95 17:06:10
Subject: NONINDIGENOUS TERRAN
BK> BK>> MG> Don’t knock it. You may have discovered where Reno
BK> BK>> MG> gets her ideas.
BK> BK>> Whereas we know for a fact Reagan did.
BK> MG> What does Reagan have to do with this?
BK> I notice you cut out the portion of this msg that makes
BK> clear what it means. Put it back in and it will explain
BK> what Reagan has to do with this.
There was nothing deleted between the lines quoted. Perhaps
you would like to re-enter them? Reagan tried to disband the
BATF according to the 1980 recommendation of Congress but I still
do not see what he has to do with the delusional psychotic AG.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Koresh, the Pope, what is the difference?
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1102)
To: Alvin Sylvain 1 Sep 95 08:59:10
Subject: “Prostitution compared to
AS> I think it’s an interesting angle to try to get
AS> prostitution legalized based on the same privacy rights as
AS> abortion.
If general privacy is the issue rather than the Roe v Wade
doctor / patient privacy then all drugs should certainly be
legal. Certainly if one is old enough to make a decision about
their body they are old enough to decide to smoke tobacco and
crack.
However, as I understand it, the decision was based solely
upon the professional relationship. That was the reason the Bush
Administration was able to get away with requiring a doctor to do
the counseling instead of the usual 20 hours (or whatever) of
training abortion counselor.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If Reno were a real general, she would get a section eight.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1103)
To: Alvin Sylvain 1 Sep 95 09:04:10
Subject: Bible Evolution Evidяяяяя
AS> -> AS> I’m being nice because I know your heart’s in the right
AS> -> AS> place. (In your chest, slightly left of center)
AS> ->
AS> -> You should not take things so seriously.
AS> After a crack like “in your chest”, you think I’m serious?
You did say to the left of center. You don’t know me very
well.
AS> Anyhow, I wasn’t aware you were doing a “take-off” on True
AS> Believers. Be careful, tho … I’m willing to bet that
AS> somewhere out there, a True Believer will pick up your
AS> article and cross-post it as a serious work !!
The Red Queen did just that last week.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * If Reno were a real general, she would get a section eight.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1104)
To: Bob Klahn 1 Sep 95 09:06:10
Subject: CHOICE EQUALS CHOICE
BK> BK>> It is an even greater sin to manipulate the economy to
BK> BK>> reduce a portion of the population to the point where
BK> BK>> they can not support their children.
BK> MG> Evidence of manipulation?
BK> How about Alan Greenspan’s confession? He stated that the
BK> Fed was raising interest rates because the unemployment
BK> rate might fall too low. If too many people found jobs
BK> that would cause wages to rise, and inflation might grow.
BK> So, the Fed raised interest rates to keep people
BK> unemployed.
Which has what to do with manipulating people? Although I
do no concur in any manipulation of the economy (and agreeing
they rarely seek my concurrence before doing so) manipulating the
economy as a whole is not manipulating any individual(s) within
it.
There is nothing directed towards those with children which
is the clear inference of your statement. That people with no
job skills at all have children is the issue to be addressed. It
is not clear people can not support themselves even on minimum
wage. I have seen it done many times.
BK> BK>> … Birth rates for unmarried women,1970-90. Black:down
BK> BK>> 1.6% White:up 128%.
BK> MG> Is there some hidden relevance to this?
BK> Shouldn’t be hidden. It’s a simple fact. Contrary to what
BK> many people believe, the birth rate for unmarried black
BK> women did not go up over the 20 years from 1970- 1990,
BK> rather it went down. The rate for white women did go up,
BK> however, by more than double.
From 20 to 50 is more than double also. Absolute numbers
and fraction of the population would be more relevant items to
provide. As we are into the financial side of this discussion,
the fraction on welfare also matters.
For example, for three years I lived with one of those
whites who helped cause the increase in that time frame. (I was
not the father.) She did not do it until she was 30 with a
stable career that was in demand and so far as I am aware was
never unemployed a day in her life, certainly not after the child
was born.
So as a minimum, the age of becoming a mother would also be
a factor of interest.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * A Bill Clinton speech, the true cause of bulemia.
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1105)
To: Lester Garrett 1 Sep 95 09:17:10
Subject: Do _NOT_ Send Encoded Msg
LG> LG> Please do **_NOT_** post any encrypted _OR_ encoded
LG> LG> (uuencoded) messages to the DEBATE Echo. Policy4
LG> LG> restricts the used of encryption. And while it is
LG> LG> unclear whether uuencoded files fall under this
LG> LG> category. . .
LG> MG> I will clarify that for you, encoding and encryption are
LG> MG> not the same thing.
LG> ??? You appear to have misinterpreted my statement. I did
LG> _not_ say or suggest that they are the same thing. I said
LG> it was unclear whether Policy4 treated them in the same
LG> fashion — i.e. proscribed both.
And to clarify again, if both words are used, both words are
meant. If only one word is used, that is the word that is meant.
If only encryption is restricted, encoding is not addressed.
That is called proper usage of english.
—
* RM 1.3 01261 * Welcome to Chiba City
— FidoPCB v1.4 [ff083/x]
* Origin: The GIFfer BBS, 175,000+files (813)969-1089 USR/V.all (1:377/50)
SEEN-BY: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1106)
To: Bob Klahn 1 Sep 95 09:25:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT 01
BK> BK>> I do believe the facilities were:
BK> BK>> A) because she was female and sleeping with the men would
BK> BK>> be unacceptable to the school as well as to her.
BK> MG> Because SHE demanded it, period. (Her attorneys are
BK> MG> her for purposes of law.)
BK> Do you mean you think she should have been bunking with
BK> the men?
That would depend upon the regulations that would govern all
cadets.
BK> BTW, I’ll keep your comment that her attorneys are her in
BK> mind for future reference.
Keep and use it again exactly as I used it. That means for
purposes of law the attorneys are the same as her. For purposes
of effort, they did the work, not her.
BK> BK>> B) for her protection. Not many of the male candidates
BK> BK>> could expect to be assualted during the night.
BK> MG> Because she could not deal with it, being both a blimp
BK> MG> and a woman.
BK> Do you mean thin women can deal with being raped, or that
BK> men deal better with being raped?
I mean that assault is assault on anyone. There are
certainly rules against coming even close to such things in
addition to the law. In other words, there should be no
different treatment because of the risk. Most diseases and
pregnancy are all curable.
Or do you just mean
BK> beating her up would be ok because she’s a woman, but
BK> wouldn’t be ok if she was thin?
I mean that her inability to wipe up the floor with a would
be rapist is of interest. At least standing her ground and
making the penalty for the attempt long and painful. But that is
the point, she can not meet the physical standards of the
institution.
BK> BK>> The relevant question is, did she meet the standards for
BK> BK>> the military?
BK> MG> The relevant answer is, No.
BK> In which case they should have just processed her in the
BK> first place and rejected her on that grounds. Instead they
BK> tried to resist the whole idea of admitting a woman. The
BK> next time they may get stuck with a woman who will make
BK> it.
To correct your error, The Citadel is not the military and
is not bound by their standards. The relevant answer is she did
not meet the standards of where she wanted to go.
BK> BK>> Training military officers is the function
BK> BK>> of the Citadel.
BK> MG> And under the terms and conditions of the Citadel and
BK> MG> none other save for the courts these days which know better
BK> MG> than those who have succeeded at it for over 150 years.
BK> Sorry, the Citadel does not get to set the standards for
BK> military officers, not even female military officers.
Which is the point. They set standards for their students
save for court interference in same.
If
BK> the US Military Academies can train women, so can the
BK> Citadel. It is not a private school.
It is a private school. Taking public funds does not make
it a public school.
As to their
BK> succeeding at it for over 150 years,
Correct that, 180+.
the military did not
BK> accept women for that long, the military was segregated
BK> from about the Civil War until Harry Truman ordered it
BK> integrated. Success at a limited goal does not justify
BK> avoiding the more inclusive goal when the situation
BK> changes.
I am unaware of what there is about war that has changed.
It is difficult to imagine a use for military academies if their
graduates are labeled non-combat only. It is further difficult
to see in what manner physical requirements have been lessened
for those engaged in ground combat.
But you see it. Tell me what has changed about ground
combat. I am interested in how it came within the scope of
women.
BK> MG> I continue to be amazed to see how many enlisted know
BK> MG> more than every officer everywhere and at every time. Why
BK> MG> my sergeant
BK> Not every officer. Some officers served as enlisted men
BK> before commisioning. Any officer who has not served very
BK> long is not likely to know as much as a good non-com who
BK> has been in a couple years.
I was referring to enlisted folks like you.
BK> While not every enlisted man knows more than every officer
**
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: 12/98 244/400 250/102 210 228 302 426 702 743 270/101
®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ®юЇ
From: Matt Giwer Area: Debate – (1107)
To: Bob Klahn 1 Sep 95 10:14:10
Subject: FAULKNER WIMPS OUT 01
BK> There are a few rules from the business world that apply
BK> to the military as well.
BK>
BK> You can fool the people you work for, you can fool the
BK> people you work with, but you can’t fool the people who
BK> work for you.
BK>
BK> Every decision should be made at the lowest possible
BK> level, no one knows a job better than the person who is
BK> doing it.
BK>
BK> If officers would learn a few of these rules they would be
BK> a lot better officers.
I have also found it amusing when the folks at the working
level just can’t understand why the budget matters.
BK> MG> uncle knew exactly how D-Day could have been done right. I
BK> MG> am certain you have similar knowledge.
BK> I wasn’t around during WW2. If you had ever listened to an
BK> officer, who had been in command of a maintenance unit a
BK> few months, trying to tell a master sergeant, who had been
BK> running that unit for years, how to do a job you would
BK> realize how foolish many officers can be.
Junior officers have to learn. What you miss is that he has
been ordered to tell him and “I have been ordered” is never to be
said. And what you also missed is the Chief being told over a
cold one that he was ordered. The Chief is permitted to blame it
on the young officer. It is part of the ritual that makes him
the good guy to the crew.
It is nothing new. I am certain Cicero knew the routine.
BK> BK>> She did beat the overwhelming odds. She got in, that was
BK> BK>> a triumph. Real equality means women have the same right
BK> BK>> to fail that men do.
BK> MG> She beat zero related odds. She got in by court
BK> MG> order. And
BK> If the administration had been operating within the law a
BK> court order would not have been necessary.
The applicability of law to such a case has to be determined
by the court. There were Citadel attorneys making the case the
law did not apply. Had they been in clear violation of a law, it
would have been either criminal or an administrative law matter
which it was not.
BK> MG> she did not accept the same rights as men. IF she had
BK> MG> accepted equal physical requirements in all aspects, maybe.
BK> MG> But she REFUSED to comply with them. But you know that.
BK> And you know women in the *MILITARY* are not held to the
BK> same requirements men are. When the Citadel starts
BK> training officers for the unorganized militia their
BK> requirements may well become relevant.
Which is not relevant to what she applied for and wanted.
Try it this way. No rational person who wants to be trained
for a career that must include a combat command to get more than
20 and out would want anything less. It would be her ass on the
battlefield and her life and the lives of others hanging on her
ability to do what is required.
There is a very good reason the US military academies label
their women graduates “noncombat” only. It is likely to get them
killed.
BK> BK>> Which they say until they really need women, then they
BK> BK>> let them in no matter what.
BK> Non – sequitor deleted.
You do not appear to understand what follows. What follows
the academy in the ideal of the academy is a combat command in
time of war. That is what they claim they produce. Nothing less
should be acceptable.
BK> MG> If she is willing to have her head shaved and meet the
BK> MG> same physical requirements as men then maybe. Until that
BK> MG> happens, the US has not graduated one woman from any of its
BK> MG> academies equal to any man.
BK> If you are trying to say the best woman officer was not
BK> equal to the worst male officer I’ll say you don’t know
BK> what you are talking about.
I am saying she was not willing to meet the minimum
requirements for a member of the cadet corp.
BK> When those things become relevant to real world military
BK> conditions let us know.
Please explain how they are not relevant so we will both
know.
BK> MG> A knob is a knob, regard
