[email protected] Matt Giwer writes:
> And just what is the distinction he shares with only two other
> individuals in US history? Please be specific in your response.
Let us review the bidding at this point for it is almost
a textbook on how to make yourself look like a fool in public:
It began when Giwer made one of his usual ipse dixit statements
motivated by his hatred an distain for Jews that they did not
honor those heroic few who stood against the Holocaust. When it
was suggested that Marvelous Matt tell us about the addresses of
Yad Vashem and the Holocaust Museum, Matt demurred on one (Yad
Vashem) and gave a phony location for the other.
MISTAKE NO. 1: Matt, forgetting to shake the mildew off his
brain, apparently did not realize that others would know where it
was. He was called on it immediately. Result: Giwer is embarrassed.
Having been informed both that the Museum was not where he said it
was and being further informed that it was located on Raoul
Wallenberg Street “guessed” (that’s his word) that Raoul Wallenberg
was a “major contributor” to the Museum.
MISTAKE NO. 2: Matt did not know who Wallenberg was. Instead of
bothering to look him up or ask someone. Matt just made the
assumption that no one would be able to point out his error.
Result: Giwer exposed.
MISTAKE NO. 3: When one gives examples of lack of deductive
powers Mendacious Matt’s “guess” must stand at the head of the
list. Even the redoubable John H. Watson would blush at the lack
of perception. It should have been obvious at this point both
from the original question and the expeditious manner in which a
number of people who knew who he was in this group that Wallenberg
would have been some sort of player in the Holocaust. Giwer was
too intent on honing his debating techniques to notice that quite
a number of people were laughing at him and stop to consider why.
Result: Giwer humiliated.
To this point Giwer has attempted to climb a ladder of smoke.
The overall result has been that he has been truonced in the debate.
Even worse his efforts could not have been more laughable if he had
been wearing a big red nose and swinging a pig’s bladder. It is the
bottom of the ninth, his opponents have scored a flock of runs, Giwer
is looking at a string of goose-eggs. He begins to flail at every pitch.
First he tells us that there are criteria for naming streets and
that Wallenberg does not meet them. He shows no evidence of what
these criteria are and, since his knowledge of Wallenberg has been
demonstrated as a pile of unsupported guesses, his doubts about
Wallenberg are just silly. It is doubtful that Giwer is aware that
Wallenberg is the recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom —
the highest award that can be given to an American citizen who is
not a member of the military.
It’s time for the Classic Giwer Ploy (I do not have a number for
this. A listing of Giwer’s phoney ploys would make a great web page
on how to lie.). Giwer asks a question with a clear implication
that the person to whom it is directed cannot provide an answer.
This ploy is a bit tattered at this point. It can only work if
Giwer can maintain the pose that he knows what he is talking about.
Giwer cannot do this. He cannot so this because he has
demonstrated that he doesn’t know who Wallenberg is but more
MISTAKE NO. 4: In cross-examination, Moldy Matt, you do not ask a
question unless you know the answer and can prove it. You forgot
that. Of course I know the answer Moronic Matt. I knew it before
you posted. I knew it when I made the post that deposited you in
this quagmire. That is because of:
MISTAKE NO. 5: Never challenge someone to present evidence that
you know he can present.
Being very specific, Melon-head Matt, Wallenberg shares this
distinction with two other people they are:
Winston Spencer Churchill
Marie Joseph Paul Yves Roch Gilbert du Motier
Where I come from that is considered fairly exalted company.
Do you still think I can’t be specific Motheaten Matt — or do
you just want to slink away without further humilition.
Thank you, by the way, for giving us such a humorous lesson in
how to make a fool of yourself. And make no mistake about it:
you have made a fool of yourself. . . . . again.
[With thanks to Yale Edeiken. See EOF for original header
>From [email protected] Wed Apr 10 08:22:49 PDT 1996
Article: 30394 of alt.revisionism
>From: [email protected] (Yale F. Edeiken)
Subject: Re: Giwer: A dog Returns to his Vomit
Date: 10 Apr 1996 03:47:08 GMT
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>