Documents

Green Richard 2

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>## “Cool off”? How much?
>
>># Our resident chemist is going to post the equations on that real
>># soon now.

Perhaps, Mr. Giwer missed this post. I leave out only what can be done
by someone with a reasonable high school education:

We know the evaporation rate of HCN is very fast. Even DT has
acknowleged this fact. His worry seems to be that since some
of the HCN freezes that perhaps its rate of evaporation decreases
substantially enough that one would have to add an unrealistically
large amount of HCN to get enough to evaporate fast enough.

(Others have pointed out that the chambers were heated, that large
amounts were used and that the Sonderkommando wore gas mask.)

Notwithstanding the fact that even frozen HCN has a significant vapor
pressure I wondered about how much of the HCN could freeze. It turns
out that atleast 25% of the HCN added cannot possibly freeze and that
is an underestimate because I assumed that all the heat required for
vaporization came from liquid HCN initially at 0 C. I leave the
calculation as an exercise for your edification (I can post it if
anyone has doubts).

The heat of vaporization of HCN is 6.03 kcal/mol (at 25 C) [I assume
it’s roughly constant over the T range of interest.]
The heat of fusion of HCN is 1.72 kcal/mol (at -13.2 C)
Specific Heat of HCN 16.94 cal/molC (at 16.9 C) [I assume
it’s roughly constant.]

So HCN evaporates rapidly. 25% cannot freeze. Even the HCN that
freezes has a significant vapor pressure. The gaseous HCN diffuses
quickly enough that toxic concentrations are reached well before
15 minutes. The Nazis could have used well in excess of what
was necessary without practical problems. All of these facts
underestimate the concentration because the chambers were heated.

I can of course repost my diffusion post if necessary.

>>## And, anyway, the vapor pressure is still
>>## way above the lethal concentration, even at low temperatures.
>
>># Vapor pressure is not concentration. It is not clear what you
>># are trying to say nor how you might know it.

ERROR ALERT: vapor pressure is concentration in convenenient units.
Now one should be careful to distinguish between equilibrium vapor
pressure and vapor pressure.

> The question is the rate of release which will result in the time
>to achieve a lethal level based upon a fixed amount of initial
>product. Now if you have been reading the stories posted here
>they are repleat with time and temperature references. Should we
>simply start with those we can arrive at the initial amount of
>material used to achieve those times.

Here is somewhat of a solution to the diffusion question assuming
that diffusion is rate-limiting compared to evaporation.

I find 1829 ppm at 0 degrees C, 5 meters, and fifteen minutes.

For pure HCN this assumption would be valid; I don’t know enough
about Zyklon-B (Jamie McCarthy pointed out to me that if Zyklon-B
doesn’t give off gas fast enough, one could simply add more; this
argument is clearly valid). Because turbulent diffusion is what counts and
because it does not depend on the molecule to first order,
I think it is safe to say that zyklon-B could have been used
to do what it was used to do even if there are some errors
in my calculation. I welcome any corrections.

One can neglect the effects of molecular diffusion compared to turbulent
diffusion (see below). In fact if it were only for molecular diffusion, one
could light a fire in a room and never smell it. It is turbulent diffusion
that counts. Turbulence is not a closed problem. However, if one uses
something called K theory which assumes an average turbulence the math
between turbulent diffusion and molecular diffusion is identical.

The problem is that it’s hard to know what to use for K. One can
use K=(sigma^2)x/2u where sigma is a characteristic length that one
estimates depending on the Pasquil stability class of the
atmosphere. I have assumed a stable atmosphere of class E which
should give an underestimate. u is the mean velocity of the
turbulent flow. As far as I know there is no way to know what
that would be without measuring it in situ. I use u=.1 m/s. x is the
distance. Note that K does not to first-order depend on the nature of the
molecule. That means that there is nothing special about the gas being HCN
to figure times.

In Turbulent Diffusion one uses K, the eddy diffusivity instead of D,
the diffusion coefficient.

Fick’s Second Law of Diffusion:

dP/dt=D*Laplacian(P)

P is the partial pressure of HCN
D is the diffusion coefficient

In one dimension assuming one (therefore an underestimate)
wall gives boundary conditions:

P=VP at x=0 for t>0
P=0 at x>0 for t=0

By the method of Laplace Transforms:

P=VP*erfc(x/(2sqrt(Dt)))

Where erfc is the complementary error function (erfc(x)=1-erf(x)).
In the case of Turbulent diffusion replace D with K. K is
independent of the molecule and estimated based on the Pasquil
stability class of the atmosphere. People argue about how to calculate
it; my calculation is below.

Richard Schultz gives us:

VP=258.1 Torr = 0.339 atm.
Mixing Ratio in ppm is defined as (volume of pollutant*10^6/volume air)
So VP= 339,000 ppm. (Richard Schultz calculated 14,000 ppm, but
I suspect he is using the liquid phase definition which is mass
ratio.)

D= 1.73 * 10^(-5)
I take x=5 m.

The result is that the contribution from molecular diffusion is
P=339000*erfc(20) which is essentially zero
(less than one molecule). If it were molecular
diffusion that counted you could not kill lice even in several
hours.

Now let’s calculate the contribution from turbulent diffusion.
First let’s calculate sigma using the Pasquill-Gifford formula
for a class E atmosphere (see Seinfeld). sigma=0.105(x)^.894=0.443

So K=(.443^2)(.1)/(2x)=0.0018
P=339000*erfc(5/2.54)=339000(.0053)=1829 ppm

I am certainly capable of making math mistakes and I welcome others to
build on this calculation. There is no good way of estimating K really,
and even K. It does not, however depend on the molecule to first order.
That means that it should disperse at the rate of perfume for instance.

I believe that if evaporation is fast enough that diffusion is.
If evaporation is not fast enough, one could add more zyklon-B or
increase its surface are.

From [email protected] Sun May 5 00:29:06 PDT 1996
Article: 34838 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!xmission!news.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!su-news-feed4.bbnplanet.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Alternate Introductory Systems
Date: 3 May 1996 16:01:41 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 264
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <DqKM4v.GM[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

________________________________________________________________________
sources:

Abromowitz and Stegun, “Handbook of Mathematical Functions”
New York: Dover 1972

Atkins,”Physical Chemistry”
New York: W.H. Freeman 1986

Crank, “The Mathematics of Diffusion”
Oxford: Clarendon 1964

Csanady “Turbulent Diffusion in the Environment”
Boston: D. Reidel

Gradshteyn and Ryzhik, “Table of Integrals, Series, and Products”
San Diego: Academic (Harcourt B &J) 1994

McQuarrie, “Statistical Mechanics”
New York: Harper & Row 1976

Seinfeld, “Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics of Air Pollution”
New York: Wiley and Sons 1986
————————————————————————–
>>Moreover, Rich Green, who is now completing a
>>Ph.D in chemistry in one of the top universities in the
>>world, knows more than you and me about the matters discussed
>>here. He’s also a nicer person than me, and he has been rather
>>polite and patient in trying to explain chemistry to you.
>
> He however deliberately uses his “credentials” to make it appear
>people are wrong when they are in fact correct.

Perhaps, Mr. Giwer can cite a single example of a case where I have
relied on my credentials rather than rational argument. If he is not
smart enough to understand such argumen, I can hardly be blamed.

> You can not have missed it when I stated simply that the Kremas
>themselves would put out more HCN than would have been used in
>any gas chambers. For some reason he wanted to make that
>statement appear false and proceeded to engage in a month or more
>of a song and dance implying I was wrong and he knew better
>because of his education. And then the three common sources of
>HCN are posted, one of which is extraction from the flue gases of
>coke furnaces, coke was was used in the Kremas. His entire
>effort had no integrity.

Mr. Giwer can not point to a single post where I deny the presence of
HCN in coke gases. Let’s look at what he actually said and what I
actually said. His inability to make distinctions is a problem of his
mental capacity and not of any misrepresentation by me.

On February 22, 1996 you made some rather interesting comments on the
production of “HCN” from burning atmospheric nitrogen:

It appears you are unaware the CN is a by product of incomplete
combustion. You see, you take a carbon based fuel and air which
contains more nitrogen than oxygen and also supports combustion but
at a higher temperature and you get a fractional production of CN
as well as CO and a mess of other things. With enough oxygen and
good design you will get all CO2 as the result. And of course if
you have ever paying any attention to the causes of smog you know one
of them nitrogen compounds emitted as gases. Do you think there is
some way to prevent carbon from being included among those compounds?
Of course there is a resident chemist here to confirm or deny this so
lets wait for his commentary.

…

Yes, Virginia, there is nitrogen in the atomsphere and yes , Virginia,
it does burn. (Giwer, Re: Open Gallon of Paint – paint one door –
throw the rest away)

Since you are such a great scientist perhaps you can explain how
burning nitrogen results in reducing it rather than oxidizing it.
Yes, we know that in fuel lean conditions that N2 is oxidized to NO and
NO2 and that these species are an important component of photochemical
smog. Yes, we agree that it is possible under fuel rich conditions that
coal containing nitrogen could produce some uncombusted cyanides.
The part that’s really difficult to understand is how atmospheric N2
enters into the production of cyanides. Please be so kind as to
explain.

Giwer, Matt. UseNet alt.revisionism,
February 22, 1996. Subject: Re: Open Gallon of Paint – paint one door –
throw the rest away
Message-ID: [email protected] Archived with URL:
http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt/giwer.0296

Perhaps, Mr. Giwer should study some freshman level redox chemistry.

> You also will remember my very simple statement that bones burn
>and that he jumped in with another month or more of the same
>routine for some reason wishing to make it appear I was wrong.
>And then there is a post of an “eyewitness” talking about
>collecting the larger bone fragments from the pits. Again his
>entire effort demonstrated a lack of integrity and a gross misuse
>of claimed credentials.

Again Mr. Giwer misrepresents the truth; I objected to Mr. Giwer’s
statement that the calcium in bones burns. Quite different: the calcium
in bones is already oxidized.

—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green
[email protected]
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud
“If it works, take it apart and find out why.” – unknown

From [email protected] Mon May 6 17:26:41 PDT 1996
Article: 35051 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.
EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 6 May 1996 11:48:07 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 203
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>I wrote:
>
>>>>Mr. Giwer fails to document where I have stated that there is no HCN present
>>>>in flue gases from coke. He cannot do so. Mr. Giwer’s inability to
>>>>read English or understand the difference between oxidation and
>>>>reduction is hardly my problem.
>
>>Mr. Giwer replies:
>
>>> And the reason I can not do that is that I did not say you ever
>>>said it. I said that you engaged in an unprofessional (at the
>>>minimum, although I would call it unethical) misuse of your
>>>credentials to engage in a game that implied I was wrong when in
>>>fact I was correct.
>
>>On the contrary, Mr. Giwer was wrong when he said that atmospheric
>>nitrgen burns to produce HCN. I have always been very careful about any
>>claims I have made. It is Mr. Giwer who is unethical: Mr. Giwer invents
>>explanations that he doesn’t understand in order to convince others that
>>he knows something about science; he does not.
>
> This is hardly worth discussing. You posted to mislead your
>fellow holohuggeres. Everyon who has refered to you as a
>chemist now looks like the suckers they really are.
>
> That is what you have deiberately done. There is no way to talk
>your way out of it.

Mr. Giwer accuses me of deceit; yet he is incapable of producing a
single post in which I have been deceitful.

>>> You pulled the same stunt with your bone burning routine also.
>
>>I never once claimed that bones burned or didn’t burn; I made that very
>>clear. I stated only that Mr. Giwer was wrong when he claimed that
>>calcium in bones burn. Mr. Giwer is unable to admit that he was wrong
>>and accuses mne of being unethical for stating the truth.
>
> You engaged in a deliberate pattern of deception.
>
> At no time did you ever correct anyone whom you deceived when
>they referred to your posts as the expert chemist on this
>conference. Never! Not once! You are a liar. You are an
>unethical person. You are a holohugger.

Mr. Giwer accuses me of deceit; yet he is incapable of producing a
single post in which I have been deceitful.

> There is no difference between any of the above three
>characterizations. You holohuggers are unethical, deceitful and
>knowingly so.

Mr. Giwer accuses me of deceit; yet he is incapable of producing a
single post in which I have been deceitful.

>>>I presume you are playing the same game with your human body
>>>combustion is exothermic routine as you have not responded.
>
>>Mr. Giwer is quite correct, I am playing the same game: I am stating the
>>truth and backing it up with evidence and rational argument. Mr.
>>Giwer’s inability to understand is not my problem. That he resorts to
>>ad homoniem attacks when proven wrong speaks volumes about his
>>character.
>
> You are not playing any game, you have deceived many of your
>fellow holohuggers into citing you as a source and here you
>clearly admit you were lying.

I admit no such thing; I have consistently told the truth.

> You made fools of them and here you clearly admit it.
>
> I also note your previous claim of being a member of the
>chemistry deparment as a sig has disappeared. You were lying
>before. That is clear.

I am a graduate student in the department of chemistry at Stanford. You
can call the department and ask or you could ask your friend Charlen
Kyle who happens to know who I am.

>>> And in the process you deliberately and willfully mislead your
>>>fellow holohuggers into believing I was wrong. You did not
>>>deceive me. You deceived them.
>
>>I deceived no one. I proved Mr. Giwer wrong about specific statements
>>that he made. His inability to understand high school chemistry, plain
>>English, and elementary logic is not my problem.
>
> You clearly read people who were citing you as a “chemist” and
>you did not questiong them or correct them as to your position.
>You are clearly a liar.

Mr. Giwer accuses me of deceit; yet he is incapable of producing a
single post in which I have been deceitful.

>>> But for me all you have done is demonstrate your clear
>>>willingness to deceive in order to promote your holocaust
>>>beliefs.
>
>>Mr. Giwer accuses me of deceit; yet he is incapable of producing a
>>single post in which I have been deceitful.
>
> I am not accusing you. I am identifying you as deceitful.
>
> Do you have any idea how many messages I can respond to citing
>your lies as an authority and point out that you have admitted
>you made it all up? You are a liar and you lied to the people
>citing you as the authority in response to my statements.

Mr. Giwer accuses me of deceit; yet he is incapable of producing a
single post in which I have been deceitful.

> You are a liar. What I have said is true and anyone citing you
>as an authority was suckered in by you. They were very dumb and
>stupid to believe your posts. You are clearly unethical and a
>liar.

Mr. Giwer accuses me of deceit; yet he is incapable of producing a
single post in which I have been deceitful.

>>> And as an example, if you are willing to do this, who is not
>>>willing to do this? You, an academic, a PhD candidate. What
>>>does that say for all of the other “academics” who support your
>>>beliefs in the holocaust? Are they all playing exactly the same
>>>game as you? The “I didn’t exactly say but I lead you to believe
>>>it” game?
>
>>I have played no such game. Mr. Giwer’s lack of scientific training,
>>lack of ability to reason or understand basic English are responsible
>>for any untrue belief he has carried away from my posts.
>
> You have clealy demonstated yourself to be a liar and everyone
>who has cited you as an “expert” in chemistry has been made out
>to be a fool for believing you.

Mr. Giwer accuses me of deceit; yet he is incapable of producing a
single post in which I have been deceitful.

> Only your fellow holohuggers will excuse you (very christian of
>them) for making fools of themselves because of you.
>
> And your .sig changed. Why is that?

I’ll change it back just for Mr. Giwer.

>>> Is that really all there is to your holocaust? That you trick
>>>people into believing in it? It certainly appears that is all
>>>there is to your holocaust, pure and simple deceit and may I even
>>>add treachery to your fellow holohuggers as you have undercut
>>>them all with display of willful deception.
>
>>Mr. Giwer cannot produce a single example of willful deceit on my part.
>>Mr. Giwer’s lack of scientific training, lack of ability to reason or
>>understand basic English are responsible for any untrue belief he has
>>carried away from my posts.
>
> You are a worthless piece of human trash whe lies and hides
>behind a legalistic piece of created bullshit.

Mr. Giwer cannot produce a single example of willful deceit on my part.
Mr. Giwer’s lack of scientific training, lack of ability to reason or
understand basic English are responsible for any untrue belief he has
carried away from my posts.

Note Mr. Giwer’s tactic. Whne proved wrong beyond a reasonable doubt,
he engages in argument ad hominem against his interlocutors.

>>> But of course they will be Christian enough to forgive you.
>>>
>>> In my book you remain unethical and deceitful. I would hope that
>>>all of the participants in this conference share that opinion of
>>>them and in particular your fellow holohuggers who were swearing
>>>by your deception which you are now retracting. You suckered
>>>them in. I will not let them forget it.
>
>>I have retracted nothing. I stand by my posts. Mr. Giwer cannot produce a
>>single example of willful deceit on my part. Mr. Giwer’s lack of scientific
>>training, lack of ability to reason or understand basic English are
>>responsible for any untrue belief he has carried away from my posts.

> Richard Green is a lying piece of shit who has deceived many with
>his word games.

Mr. Giwer cannot produce a single example of willful deceit on my part.
Mr. Giwer’s lack of scientific
training, lack of ability to reason or understand basic English are
responsible for any untrue belief he has carried away from my posts.

Note Mr. Giwer’s tactic. Whne proved wrong beyond a reasonable doubt,
he engages in argument ad hominem against his interlocutors.

—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry

[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94303-5080
“If it works, take it apart and find out why.” – unknown

From [email protected] Tue May 7 05:09:41 PDT 1996
Article: 35111 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!
news.his.com!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.skinheads,alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: A few questions for Ken McVay
Date: 6 May 1996 17:39:29 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.skinheads:21996 alt.revisionism:35111

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>> GIWER FALSE PREMISE ALERT: No one has ever said that Nizkor has
>> received an exemption for being a religious institution. In fact,
>> several people have pointed out that Nizkor is not a religious
>> institution. So, even if Giwer believes it is, it [1] isn’t and [2] is
>> not claiming tax exemption on such a basis.
>
> You are the person who belived in Richard J. Green who has now
>admitted he lied to you.

TROLL ALERT: Mr. Giwer is attempting to divert the conversation
regarding his ignorance of the law to one regarding his ignorance of
chemistry by falsely stating that I have admitted to lying. I have
neither lied nor admitted to lying and Mr. Giwer can produce no evidence
of either.

—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94303-5080
“If it works, take it apart and find out why.” – unknown

From [email protected] Thu May 9 07:10:48 PDT 1996
Article: 35248 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Alternate Introductory Systems
Date: 7 May 1996 12:37:21 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 113
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> More bullshit. The freezing point can not be acheived by
>>>evaporation.
>
>>Agreed. I have proved this by showing that at most 25% of the HCN
>>present could reach its freezing point.
>
> You have proved nothing without equations and numbers, neither of
>which you appear to know, Mr. Chemist.

On the contrary, I have provided enough information for anyone with a
freshman level understanding of chemistry and the ability to multiply to
follow:

>>>>Notwithstanding the fact that even frozen HCN has a significant vapor
>>>>pressure I wondered about how much of the HCN could freeze. It turns
>>>>out that atleast 25% of the HCN added cannot possibly freeze and that
>>>>is an underestimate because I assumed that all the heat required for
>>>>vaporization came from liquid HCN initially at 0 C. I leave the
>>>>calculation as an exercise for your edification (I can post it if
>>>>anyone has doubts).
>>>
>>>>The heat of vaporization of HCN is 6.03 kcal/mol (at 25 C) [I assume
>>>> it’s roughly constant over the T range of interest.]
>>>>The heat of fusion of HCN is 1.72 kcal/mol (at -13.2 C)
>>>>Specific Heat of HCN 16.94 cal/molC (at 16.9 C) [I assume
>>>> it’s roughly constant.]
>>>
>>> Nothing here answers the mail but your fellow and equallly
>>>ignorant holohuggers will claim that one of these numbers is
>>>vapor pressure.
>
>>I have provide these vapor pressures numerous times:
>
>>T (C) Torr
>
>>-20 100
>>0 260
>>10 410
>>20 610
>>30 900
>
>>From DuPont’s “Hydrogen Cyanide: Uses, Storage, and Handling”

> More deliberate deception. Now you are expecting the holohuggers
>who do not know any better not to notice that you are postulating
>that Zyklon B was used under a partial vacuum.

Mr. Giwer is mistaken: I have postulated no such thing. His ignorance of
basic chemistry such as Dalton’s law of partial pressures is to blame.
Dalton’s Law states: “the total pressure of a mixture of gases is the
sum of the pressures that each gas would exert if it existed alone.”

>
>>>You are clearly a liar.
>
>>Mr. Giwer cannot document this accusation.
>
> Partial vacuum vapor pressures? No equations? “Prove I said
>that bones do not burn”?

Mr. Giwer cannot document his accusation. He can, however, provide more
evidence of his ignorance of high school level science.

>>If I waited till my second year of chemistry, I could have posted years
>>ago. My credentials are not at issue, my arguments are; you’re
>>inability to understand is not my problem. I am, however, a PhD.
>>candidate in the Department of Chemistry at Stanford University.
>
> Your deliberate deception, unethical use of credentials, is
>obvious to anyone who cares to read honestly rather than blindly
>support you. You are lying one way or the other.

Mr. Giwer cannot document his accusation.

>>> Yes, PhD candidate, what is the vapor pressure and what are the
>>>equations? Of course not.
>
>>I gave you the vapor pressure at various temperatures above.
>
> And you are imply it was used under partial vacuum conditions.

Mr. Giwer errs. I implied no such thing. Mr. Giwer should review his
high school level chemistry.

>>>You never understood what I meant by P Chem in the first place.
>
>>P. Chem usually refers to Physical Chemistry, the field in which I work.
>>It is actually quite a vague term as there are many sub-fields. My
>>field happens to be Reaction Dynamics.
>
>>I do not understand what you mean by “the P Chem equations” as there are
>>an infinite number of equations that one could refer to in that manner.

> I did not think you would have any knowledge of that course you
>took as an undergraduate. It was in the Junior year in my time.

Of course I took such an undergraduate course. Mr. Giwer apparently did
not pass freshman chemistry as he does not understand Dalton’s law.

Regards,

Rich Green

—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“If it works, take it apart and find out why.” – unknown

From [email protected] Thu May 9 07:10:49 PDT 1996
Article: 35249 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Alternate Introductory Systems
Date: 7 May 1996 12:41:33 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]> <[email protected]>

NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:

> Thanks for correction, which does nothing to show “Oxygen is
>much heavier than nitrogen”.

I agree with Mr. Moran that “much” isn’t a very useful term. More to
the point oxygen is heavier than nitrogen by more than HCN is lighter
than air.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu May 9 07:10:49 PDT 1996
Article: 35290 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!
sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!
news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: !THE UNAGIWER MANEFESTO
Date: 7 May 1996 16:29:40 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

> I told the truth about your website, that it was libelous. And
>of course I would never have done such a thing if you had not
>FIRST initiated such tactics against my previous service
>providers such as Charlen Kyle and Bill Blomgren and James
>Kittrel. That is three in a row for you before I went after your
>website.

I will forward this post and all posts I find mentioning Charlen Kyle to
Charlen Kyle.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu May 9 07:10:50 PDT 1996
Article: 35428 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.tcst.com!
news.spectrum.titan.com!dildog.lgc.com!
news.sesqui.net!oitnews.harvard.edu!rutgers
!venus.sun.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: webster def of semitic
Date: 7 May 1996 22:15:51 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Bud <[email protected]> wrote:
>Here’s Webster’s Random House dictionary definition of “semitic.”
>Se-mit-ic (suh mit’ik) n.
> 1. a family of languages, a branch of the
> Afroasiatic family, comprising a number
> of ancient and modern languages of SW
> Asia and Africa, as Akkadian, Aramaic,
> Hebrew, Arabic, and Amharic.
> adj.
> 2. of or pertaining to the Semitic languages
> or their speakers.
> [< NL semiticus = semit (a) SEMITE + -icus – IC]
>
>Let he who has an ear, hear…

Webster online definition of antisemitic:

—> antisemitic
an-ti-Sem-i-tism \,ant-i-‘sem-e-,tiz-em, ,an-,t?^–\ n
(1881)
:hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious or
racial group
— an-ti-Se-mit-ic \-se-‘mit-ik\ adj
— an-ti-Sem-ite \-‘sem-,?^-t\ n

Let he or she who has a brain understand…

From [email protected] Thu May 9 07:10:51 PDT 1996
Article: 35478 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!
imci3!news.internetMCI.com!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.
EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Grand gas bag
Date: 8 May 1996 10:56:11 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Jeremy A. Litt <[email protected]> wrote:

>No, we remember the issue as to whether Calcium burns. You have stuck the
>word “bones” in for Calcium so many times that it’s impossible to believe
>that you’re not doing so deliberately. (Although I did note with interest
>your recent backpedal, claiming that he “implied” bones don’t burn, which
>of course he did not do — again, he was talking about whether Calcium
>burns).

Just a clarification: calcium metal itself will burn quite violently
(I’ve stated that before.). Calcium in its +2 oxidation state will not
burn. The calcium in bones is in its +2 oxidation state and thus will
not burn. That, of course, says nothing about whether other components
of bone burn or do not burn.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu May 9 07:10:52 PDT 1996
Article: 35609 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!
newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!imci3!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: What A Bunch of Winners (sarcasm)
Date: 8 May 1996 16:57:44 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 94
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

> But remember you are the one who relied upon the authority of a
>chemist to arrive at the opinion of my ignorance of chemisty and
>now he has agreed that coke fires produce HCN and that bones
>burn. Those are two out of three of the things he deceived you
>on and he is still stringing the exothermic combustion of the
>human body.

LIE ALERT: I have not stated that bones burn and I have not agreed
that coke fires produce HCN. Neither have I claimed that bones don’t
burn or that coke fires do not produce HCN. Mr. Giwer’ ignorance of
chemistry, however, has been adequately proven.

>>Proof, please. You;ve demonstrated so much anti-Semitism, I find it hard
>>to believe that anyone would ever even find a time when you weren’t.

> But of course your memory is so poor that you do not remember
>which side started the name calling.

Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:

>From [email protected] Sat Mar 23 14:39:28 PST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Is Giwer a Troll? Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike.

You folks should get your sociologic parallels straight. David and
Montezuma were equals. Today’s Jews are adhering to a social form that
died out in the civilized world thousands of years ago. By any
definition today’s Jews are a living anachronism that should be
preserved under some endangered species act.

Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we
should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Matt Giwer)
said:

I don’t know how to indentify jews. Why don’t you tell me?

The nose, the funny hats, the names, the beards, the “I want a
Mercedes” whine? How are they identifiable? What identifies them?
Ask three jews what is a jew and you get four opinions. Maybe you
can do better.

>From [email protected] Sun Mar 17 16:36:49 PST 1996
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer) Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Neo-Nazi spin on upholding of Canadian “hate-speech” l
Message-ID: <[email protected]>

Right, come get me, it will make my religous fervor come true.

I know it is going to happen so just say anything and I will
know I am being persecuted. I can be a martyr! Please let me take a
number for a gas chamber.

You assholes sound just like the nuns with the glossy eyes
talking about the Christian martyrs.

I don’t really mean to interrupt your sexual arousal but please
stop inflicting this upon the rest of the world.

Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up.

Mr. Giwer is, as far as I can determine, a troller whose only
interest is in causing fights. While he can sound superficially
plausible, he has lied about what has been said in exchanges (while
accusing others of lying), refused to document claims, pretended not to
see posts which contain documented refutation of his claims (even when
they have been emailed to him), engaged in actual libel, and generally
conducted himself with such complete lack of intellectual and factual
integrity that there seems to be no point in taking the time to read and
respond. For detailed and documented evidence of this, please refer to

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

Regards,

Rich Green
—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“If it works, take it apart and find out why.” – unknown

From [email protected] Thu May 9 07:10:52 PDT 1996
Article: 35610 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!
news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!
in-news.erinet.com!imci5!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com
!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!
news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 8 May 1996 16:39:55 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>It has been asserted in this news group that burning a body is not
>>>>exothermic. As evidence we are told that one cannot light a hamburger
>>>>on fire with a match. The proponents of this view do not understand the
>>>>meaning of the word exothermicity. Exothermicity means that the
>>>>reaction releases heat. It is also impossible to light a large log on
>>>>fire with a match; yet that log releases heat when burned. The
>>>>difficulty in lighting the log is a kinetic issue rather than a
>>>>thermodynamic one. Energy is needed to overcome an activation barrier.
>>>>This barrier is why one uses tinder and kindling or else lighter fluid
>>>>to start a fire.
>
>>> You have clearly been willing to decieve people on the burning
>>>bones and HCN in flue gases issue. why would you suddenly be
>>>honest on this issue?
>
>>Mr. Giwer can present no evidence of such deception on my part. Any
>>incorrect notions he has carried away from my posts are due to his
>>ignorance of chemistry, his ignorance of the English language or his
>>lack of reasoning ability.
>
> What you of course do not want to admit is that there were other
>people here citing you as evidence I was wrong. And you did not
>correct them. Thus you let that false impression stand.

But of course, Mr. Giwer was wrong in what he stated. That he was not
intelligent or educated enough to understand what he himself was saying
was the entire point of the exercise. Everyone except Mr. Giwer
understood that. I did not let a false impression stand.

> They are the people you deceived. You did not deceive me.

I’ve deceived no one, and despite his attempts I doubt that Mr. Giwer is
either.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Thu May 9 21:15:00 PDT 1996
Article: 35290 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.interne

tmci.com!

sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: !THE UNAGIWER MANEFESTO
Date: 7 May 1996 16:29:40 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

I will forward this post and all posts I find mentioning Charlen Kyle to
Charlen Kyle.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu May 9 21:15:02 PDT 1996
Article: 35428 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!news.tcst.com!news.spectrum.titan.com!

dildog.lgc.com!news.sesqui.net!oitnews.harvard.edu!

rutgers!venus.sun.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: webster def of semitic
Date: 7 May 1996 22:15:51 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

Webster online definition of antisemitic:

Let he or she who has a brain understand…

From [email protected] Thu May 9 21:15:02 PDT 1996
Article: 35610 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!

pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!

newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.

EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 8 May 1996 16:39:55 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 60
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>It has been asserted in this news group that burning a body is not
>>>>exothermic. As evidence we are told that one cannot light a hamburger
>>>>on fire with a match. The proponents of this view do not understand the
>>>>meaning of the word exothermicity. Exothermicity means that the
>>>>reaction releases heat. It is also impossible to light a large log on
>>>>fire with a match; yet that log releases heat when burned. The
>>>>difficulty in lighting the log is a kinetic issue rather than a
>>>>thermodynamic one. Energy is needed to overcome an activation barrier.
>>>>This barrier is why one uses tinder and kindling or else lighter fluid
>>>>to start a fire.
>
>>> You have clearly been willing to decieve people on the burning
>>>bones and HCN in flue gases issue. why would you suddenly be
>>>honest on this issue?
>
>>Mr. Giwer can present no evidence of such deception on my part. Any
>>incorrect notions he has carried away from my posts are due to his
>>ignorance of chemistry, his ignorance of the English language or his
>>lack of reasoning ability.
>
> What you of course do not want to admit is that there were other
>people here citing you as evidence I was wrong. And you did not
>correct them. Thus you let that false impression stand.

> They are the people you deceived. You did not deceive me.

I’ve deceived no one, and despite his attempts I doubt that Mr. Giwer is
either.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Thu May 9 21:15:03 PDT 1996
Article: 35665 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!

vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!venus.sun.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Goldhagen’s thesis (was Re: Alternate Introductory Sys
Date: 4 May 1996 14:34:52 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Rich Graves <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (DvdThomas) wrote:
>>Mr. McFee, you are way off base, but I suppose it’s harmless.
>
>I agree; Erhlich doesn’t lie like DbtThomas.

Well, this particular denier posts in various styles and with various
names: Yggdrasil, Agathist, DvdThomas, Dbting Thomas.

I still suspect that the correct name is not Bob Hunt, but rather
Bradley Smith.

From [email protected] Fri May 10 06:52:48 PDT 1996
Article: 35740 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!news.emf.net!news.uoregon.edu!

arclight.uoregon.edu!enews.sgi.com!sgigate.sgi.com!

nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 9 May 1996 12:32:29 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>> The total heat given off by entirely burning the burger is:
>>>
>>>> 205.8 kJ – 1117 kJ = – 911 kJ
>>>
>>> Save course we have only one half the “methane” you need to make
>>>this work and the BTU equivalent of misc. organics is not up to
>>>the level of methane. Your net deficit appears to be 1113 – 911
>>>or 202 even under your best case assumptions.
>
>>Mr. Giwer’s numbers appear to come out of thin air. I suspect he is
>>unfamiliar with rudimentary sign conventions.
>
> You have screwed up royaly and you know your fellow holohuggers
>are as ignorant as you pretend I am and will not be able to
>recognize the difference.

Mr. Giwer fails to demonstrate how I have “screwed up royaly [sic].”
I suspect he is unfamiliar with simple sign conventions.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Sat May 11 07:56:00 PDT 1996
Article: 36009 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!

hookup!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!

tandem!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: !Grynspan MUST keep posting the Address of Jew Children for Giwer
Date: 5 May 1996 22:22:48 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (!Rack Jite) wrote:

> You should never have taken after Charlen.

It should be noted that any discussion of Charlen Kyle posted here will
be sent to her by me as a courtesy.

Regards,

Rich Green
—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford, CA 94305-5080
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud
“If it works, take it apart and find out why.” – unknown

From [email protected] Sat May 11 07:56:01 PDT 1996
Article: 36012 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!

op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!imci5

!pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.com!

newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!

news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 10 May 1996 12:34:48 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>

, Ceacaa <[email protected]> wrote:
>Richard J. Green writes on
> 9 May 1996
>
>>Ceacaa’s argument about HCN rising makes no sense. Does >Ceacaa also
>>believe that nitrogen rises? It’s the temperature of the >gas and the
>>turbulence that will determine the dispersion.
>
> Mr. Green, in the conditions of Leichenkeller 1
>Crema 2, do you think that dumping Zyclon into
>a 9 cm. basket at the level of the ceiling is an
>efficient, or even an effective, method of dispersing
>HCN throughout a room?
>
>With five minutes of thought, could you imagine a more effective system
>for HCN dispersal, such as one
>which would effect the temperature of the gas and the
>turbulence, such as a fan?

I was addressing Mr. Ceacaa’s specious claim about HCN rising; I was not
addressing other matters concerning the dispersal of HCN throughout the
room. Does Mr. Ceacaa believe that there is some problem with such a
high vapor pressure liquid being dispersed quickly?

With five minutes of thought one can probably imagine better systems.
The question is whether such a system would be necessary.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Sat May 11 07:56:02 PDT 1996
Article: 36036 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!

op.net!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!imci5!

pull-feed.internetmci.com!news.internetMCI.

com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!

news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: If no lice, then no Holocaust
Date: 10 May 1996 15:12:17 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <4mrjkl$1e[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Daniel Keren <[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) writes:
>
>[About Zyklon-B pellets]
>
># You forget that one of your holohuggers proved the could
># not have been blue because HCN only forms that color with iron.
>
>Since you are in the habit of misquoting people, it would be
>better if you give the exact citation. Frankly, I don’t believe
>one word you write. So post the excerpt you refer to.

Dr. Keren is indeed correct to be suspicious of Mr. Giwer.

What’s wrong with this logic:

HCN is not blue except when complexed to a metal such as iron.
Zyklon-B could not have a blue color.

Mr. Mazal has provided evidence that one of the forms of Zyklon-B was
silica gel impregnated with HCN. Silica gel itself can be blue.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Mon May 13 19:58:55 PDT 1996
Article: 36762 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

imci2!imci3!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!

sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 13 May 1996 14:52:59 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:

>According to -The Dictionary of Chemical Compounds-, under
>”hydrocyanic acid” aka “hydrogen cyanide” aka “HCN”, to:
>
>”Derivation: (a) By catalytically reacting ammonia and air with
>methane or natural gas. (b) By recovery from coke oven gases. (c) From
>bituminus coal and ammonia at 1250 degrees”.
>And the Ca in bones can’t burn, while Ca++ is still in the final
>state. Only proteins in bones can burn (collagen aso), and how can it
>could deserve your ideas , as it is exothermic ?

An interesting post here. Not only were our deniers wrong in claiming
that the HCN comes from atmospheric N2 (It comes from nitrogen in the
coal), they were wrong about it coming from the burning of coke (it
comes from the gases given off when coal is heated to form coke).

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Mon May 13 21:57:47 PDT 1996
Article: 36785 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!

news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!

news1.digital.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 13 May 1996 16:36:45 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 89
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Male’s are about 14% fat and females 22%. So females would be more
>>>>>>exothermic. Exothermicity of fats can be measured in bomb calorimeters
>>>>>>and are about 9 kcal/g (1 cal = 4.184 J). Furthermore we are ignoring
>>>>>>protein, urea, carbohydrates and other combustible materials.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carrying through all the multiplications we have 0.1×0.18×9000
>>>>>for 162 calories for the fat contribution from the remaining 1/10
>>>>>gm of organics, using a male / female average. We are still a
>>>>>few calories away from boiling away the water.
>>>
>>>>Deception alert! If we have 1 gram of hamburger and 18% of it is fat,
>>>>then it releases .18 * (9000) = 1620 calories. Mr. Giwer has no
>>>>justification to multiply this number by .1.
>>>
>>> You are trying to get this heat out of the organic material that
>>>remains AFTER the 0.9 gm of water has boiled away. Therefore you
>>>must get it from the remaining 0.1 gm. Even if we were to go
>>>with your mostly bloodless hamburger with 0.8 water content you
>>>still have only 0.2 gm to work with. But with a human body,
>>>which was the original contention, you have to boil the blood
>>>also to make this process exothermic.
>>>
>>> Therefore after the 90% of water is gone you can only use 18% of
>>>the remaining 10% as fat. Thus the justification.
>
>>Mr. Giwer invents his own facts when he finds the truth inconvenient.
>>The average male is 14% body fat. That means out of every 1 g of boy
>>weight .14 g are fat. For women it’s 22%. Boiling blood is a
>>diversion: we’ve already boiled the water content of the blood.

> The percentage of body weight are of fat CELLS which contain both
>fat and water. No, the body does not contain layers of pure
>lard.

Readers will note that I have never brought up the question of cells.
The percentage of fat in human bodies as I understand it is based on an
analysis of all compounds in the human body. If anyone has information
to the contrary, he or she should provide a reference. The percentage
of water is not counting some water and not other water; it is the
total percentage of water.

> We started this discussion with you with an 80% and me with a 90%
>water assumption. Within the limits of that we should complete
>it. We should divert by assuming there are no fat cells but pure
>fat.

This paragraph needs translation into English. It sounds as if Mr.
Giwer is asking to complete what has already been completed. If 80% of
the body is water and 14% is fat, exothermicity has been proved. Let’s
even make it 90% water and 10% fat (a ridiculous underestimate),
combustion is still exothermic. If Mr. Giwer has an argument with
substance to it, I will respond.

> The floor is yours, Dr. Green.

Mr. Giwer should wait about a year before addressing me as Dr.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

Regards,

From [email protected] Mon May 13 21:57:48 PDT 1996
Article: 36788 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!

newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!

news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: If no lice, then no Holocaust
Date: 13 May 1996 16:47:33 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

Mr. Giwer’s constant misrepresentations convince me that he is not worth
responding to. I would like to set the record straight here, lest
anyone become confused (probably Giwer’s goal.).

> Except that Professor Green has just established that Zyklon-B
>could not have been used because it could not be blue and that is
>the description of the witnesses.

I am not yet a professor. Mr. Giwer is not telling the truth that I
have said that Zyklon-B could not be blue. He can provide no
substantiation to the claim.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:09:42 PDT 1996
Article: 36911 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!

news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!

news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!

sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!

not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 14 May 1996 11:30:10 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 9430

5, USA
Lines: 23
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:

> This could be. Extraction form bituminous coal is a method of
>recovering HCN. It doesn’t mean they could haven’t just dedicated a
>oven to this purpose. All this activity also put the cyanide compound
>into the atmosphere to settle out over the earth which in an area like
>Poland – Europe would plenty sufficient to account for any miniscule
>traces found at Auschwitz.

Ah, but perhaps Mr. Moran can explain why such traces of HCN
were not found in the barracks and living quarters.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:09:42 PDT 1996
Article: 36972 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!

news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!

tandem!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.current-events,soc.culture.israel,ba.israelis,alt.security.terrorism
Subject: Re: Israeli attack on Civilans — US Planes in Jordan
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.current-events,soc.culture.israel,ba.israelis,alt.security.terrorism
Date: 14 May 1996 17:14:06 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 102
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <4n41us[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:36972 soc.culture.jewish:50505 alt.politics.nationalism.white:19979 soc.culture.israel:33679

[alt.revisionism removed from followups as this thread does not address
the historical fact of the Holocaust]

Folks,

I for one cannot hold the government of Israel innocent of recent
events in Lebanon, however, I think that several of the posters in this
thread are engaging in legitimate debate. One of the, however, is not.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:

>From [email protected] Sat Mar 23 14:39:28 PST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Is Giwer a Troll? Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike.

Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we
should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David.

In article <[email protected]>,

[email protected] (Matt Giwer)
said:

I don’t know how to indentify jews. Why don’t you tell me?

Right, come get me, it will make my religous fervor come true.

I know it is going to happen so just say anything and I will
know I am being persecuted. I can be a martyr! Please let me take a
number for a gas chamber.

You assholes sound just like the nuns with the glossy eyes
talking about the Christian martyrs.

I don’t really mean to interrupt your sexual arousal but please
stop inflicting this upon the rest of the world.

Article 83469 of alt.revisionism:
Path: nntp.Stanford.EDU!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!

howland.reston.ans.net!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!cmcl2!

news.nyu.edu!is.nyu.edu!jal5266
From: [email protected] (Jeremy A. Litt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Michael is a big, fat idiot like Rush Limbaugh
Followup-To: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Date: 30 Apr 1996 00:32:30 GMT
Organization: New York University
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: is.nyu.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: root
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: nntp.Stanford.EDU alt.revisionism:83469 soc.culture.jewish:188818

Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

: You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up.

And you need to learn that it’s not “hyphenated” in the same sense that
“Polish-American” is “hyphenated.” The dash isn’t joining anything, it’s
replacing the “o” — it could easily be G*d or G!d — get it?

And you need to stop making disparaging remarks about others’ religions
if you ever want to be taken seriously.

Regards,

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:09:44 PDT 1996
Article: 37023 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!

loki.tor.hookup.net!hookup!solaris.cc.vt.edu!

news.vistachrome.com!news.supernet.net!

news.magicnet.net!nntp.crosslink.net!news2.cais.net!news.cais.net!

news.ac.net!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!

uwm.edu!fnnews.fnal.gov!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.history
Subject: Re: Six Questions Matt Giwer won’t answer (Round 2)
Date: 8 May 1996 11:33:39 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:37023 soc.history:5234

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Question 4
>>>>———-
>>>
>>>> On February 22, 1996 you made some rather interesting comments on the
>>>> production of “HCN” from burning atmospheric nitrogen:
>>>
>>>> It appears you are unaware the CN is a by product of incomplete
>>>> combustion. You see, you take a carbon based fuel and air which
>>>> contains more nitrogen than oxygen and also supports combustion but
>>>> at a higher temperature and you get a fractional production of CN
>>>> as well as CO and a mess of other things. With enough oxygen and
>>>> good design you will get all CO2 as the result. And of course if
>>>> you have ever paying any attention to the causes of smog you know one
>>>> of them nitrogen compounds emitted as gases. Do you think there is
>>>> some way to prevent carbon from being included among those compounds?
>>>> Of course there is a resident chemist here to confirm or deny this so
>>>> lets wait for his commentary.
>>>
>>>> …
>>>
>>>> Yes, Virginia, there is nitrogen in the atomsphere and yes , Virginia,
>>>> it does burn. (Giwer, Re: Open Gallon of Paint – paint one door –
>>>> throw the rest away)
>>>
>>>> Since you are a qualified chemist, perhaps you can explain how
>>>> burning nitrogen results in reducing it rather than oxidizing it.
>>>> Yes, we know that in fuel lean conditions that N2 is oxidized to NO and
>>>> NO2 and that these species are an important component of photochemical
>>>> smog. Yes, we agree that it is possible under fuel rich conditions that
>>>> coal containing nitrogen could produce some uncombusted cyanides.
>>>> The part that’s really difficult to understand is how atmospheric N2
>>>> enters into the production of cyanides. Please be so kind as to
>>>> explain.
>
>>> As you know by now one of the commerical sources of HCN is the
>>>flue gases of coke fires and coke is cited as the fuel for the
>>>Kremas.
>
>>EVASION ALERT: Mr. Giwer has not answered the question.
>
> Deal with those you deceived. Many people claim to have never
>believed anything I have posted. They believed what you posted.
>I suspect they will be feeling differently about you than about
>me.

EVASION ALERT: Mr. Giwer has not answered the question.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:09:44 PDT 1996
Article: 37148 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!

news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!

nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: holocaust
Date: 15 May 1996 13:49:09 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 62
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
DvdThomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>E. Nussbaum wrote:
>
>>during ww2 the Germans, as a deliberate policy, murdered millions of jews
>>and others. These were specifically planned murders, not simply the
>>ravages of war.
>>It is simple nonesense to say otherwise.
>>it is also simple fact that the deniers are vicious
>>anti semites not historians.
>>every one reading this allready knows both of these things
>
>The more blatant nonsense I read like the above, the more I am reminded of
>past discussions with religious fundamentalists. When the mutually agreed
>upon course of logic pushed their surrealistic position to an untenable
>spot, they’d fall back into a mantra and the discussion was effectively
>over.

Could Mr. X be more specific about which parts of Mr. Nussbaum’s post he
finds to be nonsense.

Does Mr. X deny that the German government murdered millions of Jews and
others as deliberate policy?

Does Mr. X deny that these murders were beyond what was militarily
necessary or useful?

Does Mr. X deny that most of the holocaust deniers are anti-semites and
not historians?

Would Mr. X name examples of holocaust deniers he believes are not
anti-semites?

Would Mr. X name examples of holocaust deniers he believes are
historians?

>As someone properly admonished me the other day when I referred to a
>statement as “the plain and simple truth,” truth is seldom plain and never
>simple (that last is taken from a famous quote, maybe Oscar Wilde). There
>is little about the murky collection of supposed support for the orthodox
>description of these events that is simple.

Which parts of the “orthodox description” does Mr. X believe lacks
support?

>And, to paraphrase a prominent Jewish scholar (Lilienthal?), it used to be
>that an antisemite was anyone that hated Jews. Unfortunately, today an
>antisemite is anyone that Jews hate.

Ah, the favorite mantra of Jew-haters. Not very original.

Does X = Smith?

Regards,

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:09:45 PDT 1996
Article: 37155 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!

in1.uu.net!tandem!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!

not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer & His Phanthom Al Gentile
Date: 15 May 1996 14:49:27 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 32
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <31[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

Mr. Curtis and Mr. Van Alstine,

It seems to me that Mr. Grynszpan is who he says he is. I think we
should be careful about being fair to him. That Mr. Giwer claims Mr.
Grynszpan is supporting him does not make it so.

See Mr. Grynszpan’s recent post “new information.” It seems that
there is a lot of confusion on what Mr. Grynszpan intended to verify
versus what he seemed to verify.

Mr. Grynszpan, I think it is terrible what happened to your family.
Please realize that the posters here are striving to preservce that
memory from hate-mongers like Mr. Giwer and worse (Greg Raven etc.).

None of the “conventionalists” have called anyone antisemitic for
genuine inquiry. No one would even think of calling Raoul Hillberg a
denier for saying that 5.1 million Jews died in the holocaust.

If you would like to tell us your story, I think that many of us would
be quite interested.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:09:46 PDT 1996
Article: 37165 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!

newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!news.his.com!

news.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!

sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!

not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 15 May 1996 13:14:39 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

<[email protected]>

<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Ah, but perhaps Mr. Moran can explain why such traces of HCN
>>were not found in the barracks and living quarters.
>
> Now you know I presented this in the critique on the Auschwitz
>test done by the Poles. You know. The one you responded to with a
>bunch of sarcasms and baby talk. It will be posted again. Maybe you
>will be able to do little better the next time.

On the contrary Mr. moran’s “critique” was nonsense. He had no
comprehension of what the Crakow scientists were doing. He has no
explanation for the negative result in barracks and a postitve result in
the gas chambers.

The report can be found at:

ftp://ftp.almanac.bc.ca/pub/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report
—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
“If it works, take it apart and find out why.” – unknown

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:09:46 PDT 1996
Article: 37201 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!tau.uac.net!cancer.vividnet.com!hunter.premier.net!bofh.dot!insync!news.io.com!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 15 May 1996 13:08:19 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 70
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>> You are trying to get this heat out of the organic material that
>>>>>remains AFTER the 0.9 gm of water has boiled away. Therefore you
>>>>>must get it from the remaining 0.1 gm. Even if we were to go
>>>>>with your mostly bloodless hamburger with 0.8 water content you
>>>>>still have only 0.2 gm to work with. But with a human body,
>>>>>which was the original contention, you have to boil the blood
>>>>>also to make this process exothermic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Therefore after the 90% of water is gone you can only use 18% of
>>>>>the remaining 10% as fat. Thus the justification.
>>>
>>>>Mr. Giwer invents his own facts when he finds the truth inconvenient.
>>>>The average male is 14% body fat. That means out of every 1 g of boy
>>>>weight .14 g are fat. For women it’s 22%. Boiling blood is a
>>>>diversion: we’ve already boiled the water content of the blood.
>
>>> The percentage of body weight are of fat CELLS which contain both
>>>fat and water. No, the body does not contain layers of pure
>>>lard.
>
>>Readers will note that I have never brought up the question of cells.
>>The percentage of fat in human bodies as I understand it is based on an
>>analysis of all compounds in the human body. If anyone has information
>>to the contrary, he or she should provide a reference. The percentage
>>of water is not counting some water and not other water; it is the
>>total percentage of water.
>
> If your claim is true then it is very, very strange that the
>percentages you use are identical to the male, female averages
>which are of cells.

Can Mr. Giwer provide a source for this claim?

>In any event, since they are the same as for
>living people, your percentages are too high.

Can Mr. Giwer provide a source for this claim?

>>> The floor is yours, Dr. Green.
>
>>Mr. Giwer should wait about a year before addressing me as Dr.
>
> It means you are unethical and are willing to use your pretend
>credentials to deceive.

Mr. Giwer cannot provide a single example of me claiming credentials
that I don’t have.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Thu May 16 12:42:09 PDT 1996
Article: 20150 of alt.politics.nationalism.white
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.current-events,soc.culture.israel,ba.israelis,alt.security.terrorism
Subject: Re: Israeli attack on Civilans — US Planes in Jordan
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.current-events,soc.culture.israel,ba.israelis,alt.security.terrorism
Date: 16 May 1996 11:25:07 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:37343 soc.culture.jewish:51111 alt.politics.nationalism.white:20150 soc.culture.israel:33882

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected](Moritz Rothschild ) wrote:
>
>>Tell us all Giwer why are you so inrent on writing on the Israeli
>>board.
>
> I am writing from alt.revisionism
>
>>Why —-are you so enamoured with Arabs? or is it as we
>>suspect–nay are certain –your hatred for Jews?
>
> If you are certain what can I possibly say?
>
>What is it was your
>>mother a maid in a Jewish home? or did your father work in a Jewish
>>establishment? What caused you to hate Jews? Or did a Jewish kid
>>refuse to give you his pennies when you tried to shake him down in the
>>playground. Or did a Jewish girl refuse your advances? Or did a
>>Jewish lawyer refuse to take your criminal case? Tell all now Giwer.
>
> The discussion here is what the nation of Israel is doing. Some
>of the people involved happen to be Jews.
>
> But there are some people, which you exemplify very well, who
>attempt to equate any comment less that laudatory about Israel as
>anti-semitic. Why do you do that? Do you really believe Israel
>can do not wrong? (Of course, you can answer the reverse of your
>challenge to me. Name something Israel has done wrong.)
>
> Israel happens to have a religious significance it some Jews.
>That others do not share that religious reverence says thing
>about their opinions of Jews.

Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:

>From [email protected] Sat Mar 23 14:39:28 PST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Is Giwer a Troll? Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike.

Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we
should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
said:

I don’t know how to indentify jews. Why don’t you tell me?

Right, come get me, it will make my religous fervor come true.

I know it is going to happen so just say anything and I will
know I am being persecuted. I can be a martyr! Please let me take a
number for a gas chamber.

You assholes sound just like the nuns with the glossy eyes
talking about the Christian martyrs.

I don’t really mean to interrupt your sexual arousal but please
stop inflicting this upon the rest of the world.

Article 83469 of alt.revisionism:
Path: nntp.Stanford.EDU!news.Stanford.EDU!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!cmcl2!news.nyu.edu!is.nyu.edu!jal5266
From: [email protected] (Jeremy A. Litt)
Newsgroups: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Subject: Re: Michael is a big, fat idiot like Rush Limbaugh
Followup-To: alt.politics.white-power,alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish
Date: 30 Apr 1996 00:32:30 GMT
Organization: New York University
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: is.nyu.edu
NNTP-Posting-User: root
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Xref: nntp.Stanford.EDU alt.revisionism:83469 soc.culture.jewish:188818

Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

: You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up.

And you need to stop making disparaging remarks about others’ religions
if you ever want to be taken seriously.

From [email protected] Fri May 17 14:33:08 PDT 1996
Article: 37339 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: holocaust
Date: 16 May 1996 11:12:44 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 42
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <4ndg05[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
william c anderson <[email protected]> wrote:

>Richard J. Green ([email protected]) wrote:
>: DvdThomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>:
>: >And, to paraphrase a prominent Jewish scholar (Lilienthal?), it used to be
>: >that an antisemite was anyone that hated Jews. Unfortunately, today an
>: >antisemite is anyone that Jews hate.
>:
>: Ah, the favorite mantra of Jew-haters. Not very original.
>
>But isn’t it nice of these people to identify themselves so clearly?
>Whenever one sees the line above, or, for example:
>
>”God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”
>
>”The murder of Vince Foster”
>
>”The second law of thermodynamics”
>
>”Environmentalist whackos, feminazis and the liberal media”
>
>…one knows at once with whom one is dealing; I find it extremely
>helpful in sorting intelligent folks with whom I disagree from
>crackpots who probably aren’t worth arguing with.

I think I missed the problem with the second law of thermo :-).
It seems to me that this phrase is used about equally by people who
understand what entropy is and by people who don’t. Well, maybe it’s
used more by people who don’t.

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Fri May 17 14:33:08 PDT 1996
Article: 37343 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!uwm.edu!lll-winken.llnl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!unixhub!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.current-events,soc.culture.israel,ba.israelis,alt.security.terrorism
Subject: Re: Israeli attack on Civilans — US Planes in Jordan
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish,alt.politics.nationalism.white,alt.current-events,soc.culture.israel,ba.israelis,alt.security.terrorism
Date: 16 May 1996 11:25:07 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 114
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:37343 soc.culture.jewish:51111 alt.politics.nationalism.white:20150 soc.culture.israel:33882

Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:

>From [email protected] Sat Mar 23 14:39:28 PST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Is Giwer a Troll? Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike.

Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we
should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
said:

I don’t know how to indentify jews. Why don’t you tell me?

Right, come get me, it will make my religous fervor come true.

I know it is going to happen so just say anything and I will
know I am being persecuted. I can be a martyr! Please let me take a
number for a gas chamber.

You assholes sound just like the nuns with the glossy eyes
talking about the Christian martyrs.

I don’t really mean to interrupt your sexual arousal but please
stop inflicting this upon the rest of the world.

Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

: You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up.

And you need to stop making disparaging remarks about others’ religions
if you ever want to be taken seriously.

From [email protected] Fri May 17 14:33:09 PDT 1996
Article: 37422 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: 960502: It is amazing that the world has not yet been informed of this
Date: 16 May 1996 17:23:19 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Readers will note that I have never brought up the question of cells.
>>>>The percentage of fat in human bodies as I understand it is based on an
>>>>analysis of all compounds in the human body. If anyone has information
>>>>to the contrary, he or she should provide a reference. The percentage
>>>>of water is not counting some water and not other water; it is the
>>>>total percentage of water.
>>>
>>> If your claim is true then it is very, very strange that the
>>>percentages you use are identical to the male, female averages
>>>which are of cells.
>
>>Can Mr. Giwer provide a source for this claim?
>
> It is not considered ethical to render human bodies to get a
>differentiation between cells and fat content. You might call
>over to the physiology department and find out.
>
>>>In any event, since they are the same as for
>>>living people, your percentages are too high.
>
>>Can Mr. Giwer provide a source for this claim?
>
> Can you provide sources for your claim? You simply introduced it
>without support of footnote.

Mr. Giwer has no source for his claim.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Fri May 17 14:33:10 PDT 1996
Article: 37423 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: holocaust
Followup-To: talk.origins
Date: 16 May 1996 17:27:38 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <4nfr6[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
william c anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>Richard J. Green ([email protected]) wrote:
>: william c anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
>:
>: >But isn’t it nice of these people to identify themselves so clearly?
>: >Whenever one sees the line above, or, for example:
>: >
>: >”God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”
>: >
>: >”The murder of Vince Foster”
>: >
>: >”The second law of thermodynamics”
>: >
>: >”Environmentalist whackos, feminazis and the liberal media”
>: >
>: >…one knows at once with whom one is dealing; I find it extremely
>: >helpful in sorting intelligent folks with whom I disagree from
>: >crackpots who probably aren’t worth arguing with.
>:
>: I think I missed the problem with the second law of thermo :-).
>: It seems to me that this phrase is used about equally by people who
>: understand what entropy is and by people who don’t. Well, maybe it’s
>: used more by people who don’t.
>
>Probably true–but in the context of usenet political groups, any
>mention of the second law almost invariably signifies the approach
>of a muddled rant about how evolution is impossible because entropy
>is increasing. Tellingly, explaining how they’ve misconceived the
>second law almost never has any effect on these people; somebody,
>somewhere has told them that evolution is a violation of the second
>law, and that’s their story, and they’re sticking to it.

I guess it doesn’t help to tell the that the earth is not a closed
system as they probably have no concept of what that means. Oh, well.

Followups to talk.origins

Regards,

From [email protected] Sat May 18 07:35:34 PDT 1996
Article: 37724 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!en.com!news.his.com!news.frontiernet.net!news.texas.net!news1.best.com!sgigate.sgi.com!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Cyanide Traces at Auschwitz Today
Date: 17 May 1996 23:05:17 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 80
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>tom moran <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (tom moran) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Mr.Green, the alt.revisionism resident chemist posted in another
>>>thread a claim that Moran never accounted for low traces or no traces
>>>of cyanide found in barracks in relation to traces found at crematoria
>>>sites. Having lost track of what thread it was in, the response is
>>>being set here, where it should be in the first place. Perhaps
>>>Mr.Green will pop back in and clear things up as to the other post.
>>> He is absolutely right, “barracks” is not mentioned in the
>>>following paste from the end of the intial post, and care will be
>>>taken to include it in the next post. Nevertheless, the answer to
>>>Mr.Green’s claim has been here all along, sans only the word
>>>”barracks”.
>>>
>>>
>>>”The report does not make a stab at explaining why such low
>>>traces were found in fumigation chambers, in some cases being zero,
>>>when we would expect to find high levels. Judging by photographs of
>>>still extent fumigation chambers, the interiors of these facilities
>>>have been protected from weather conditions.
>>> On the other hand, the highest amounts of cyanide compounds
>>>found, outside of that detected in the Prussian blue stains in the
>>>fumigation chambers and the bathhouse, are those found in Crema I and
>>>II, and the amounts said to have been found in the cellar of “block
>>>11″, all underground structures built of concrete, prone to dampness
>>>and thus prime places for the dynamics of precipitous deposit to
>>>occur.”
>>>
>>> Sample Mr.Green’s responding technique, first in the thread.
>
>>Does Mr. Moran believe this is an answer? We agree then that the
>>homicidal gas chambers had HCN traces and that other buildings such as
>>barracks and living quarters did not. I’ll remind the reader that the
>>Crakow scientists used a detection methos that ddiscriminated against
>>tdetecting cyanide from Prussian blue because the origin of Prussian
>>blue is not clear. Mr. Moran blaims the difference on the dynamics of
>>precipitous deposit.
>
>>What does he think that means.

> In which case, since they made such extensive references to
>Leuchter, that they would have noted the “prussian blue” interior
>painting on these rooms but they did not. That would have made
>the camp so much more cozy.
>
> In other words, without the slightest cause, you are muddying the
>discussion with a suggestion that paint was also source of
>cyanide compounds. But of course you will demand proof from me
>that they were not painted blue. You future as a chemist is in
>serious question.

Mr. Giwer’s reading “skills” are interesting to say the least.
No comment is necessary here.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:00 PDT 1996
Article: 37996 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!sgigate.sgi.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 19 May 1996 12:08:15 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <4nha8u$7t8@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Ceacaa <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>This ties into my question about HCN rising. Green wrote:
>>> > “It’s the temperature of the gas and the
>>>> turbulence that will determine the dispersion.”
>>>
>>>Exactly so. If your cone was at the ceiling level, the vaporising
>>>HCN would have the same temperature as the surrounding
>>>warm air at the ceiling level.
>
>>Why? I would expect it to be cooler. However, unless there is already
>>an inversion, we can expect very quick turbulent diffusion I would
>>think. Perhaps, Ceacaa can come up with an accurate expression for the
>>eddy diffusivity.
>
> It is understandable why you have never posted the P Chem
>equations after this statement.

If Mr. Giwer means my solution to the turbulent diffusion problem, I
have indeed posted it many times.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:01 PDT 1996
Article: 38011 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!olivea!venus.sun.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust?
Date: 19 May 1996 23:00:58 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 119
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <4nlm[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Danny) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Ehrlich606) writes…
>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
>>>(Matt Giwer) writes:
>>[snip]
>>>
>>>Even though I think some his posts are junk, the man deserves to be heard,
>>>ESPECIALLY here. I will watch his posts, too, and if I catch him screwing
>>>around I will say so, just to be fair. And in return, his opposite
>>>numbers should try to answer his arguments without extended invective.
>>>That means everybody, please?
>
>> Sorry, you walked in on the middle of this dance and missed the opening
>> few numbers. There were several months where discussion was attempted.
>> Giwer simply twisted responses and spewed out trolling jabs. The
>> current state of affairs grew from that.
>
>> I will discuss the Holocaust forever with Tommy or others who will
>> actually discuss it. Giwer twists it to continue argument. I have no
>> interest in feeding that psychosis.
>
>
> Which of course is a clear falsification of what happened.
>
> I was clearly called a nazi and an antisemite for questioning
>anything contrary to the Nizkor Creed. There were ZERO jabs
>before that as I was specifically waiting for what I knew would
>come before using any of them and very carefully refrained from
>using any of them until I was called the above names.

Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:

>From [email protected] Sat Mar 23 14:39:28 PST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Is Giwer a Troll? Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike.

Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we
should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
said:

I don’t know how to indentify jews. Why don’t you tell me?

Right, come get me, it will make my religous fervor come true.

I know it is going to happen so just say anything and I will
know I am being persecuted. I can be a martyr! Please let me take a
number for a gas chamber.

You assholes sound just like the nuns with the glossy eyes
talking about the Christian martyrs.

I don’t really mean to interrupt your sexual arousal but please
stop inflicting this upon the rest of the world.

Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

: You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:01 PDT 1996
Article: 38191 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 20 May 1996 12:22:48 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 59
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

I wrote:

>>If Mr. Giwer means my solution to the turbulent diffusion problem, I
>>have indeed posted it many times.

Mr. Giwer responds:

> Unfortunately, you have not, nor have you explained why cooler
>air would be near the ceiling.

Mr. Giwer errs in his assertion that I have not posted my solution to
the turbulent diffusuion problem. Mr. Giwer errs in his assertion that
I have said that cooler air would be near the ceiling (however, assuming
an adiabatic lapse rate, it would be). If Mr. Ceacaa is asserting the
existence of an inversion layer, we can discuss it. I doubt whether Mr.
Giwer understands what an inversion layer is.

Mr. Giwer chants:

> MANTRA! MANTRA!

in response to my claim:

>>Mr. Giwer is, as far as I can determine, a troller whose only
>>interest is in causing fights. While he can sound superficially
>>plausible, he has lied about what has been said in exchanges (while
>>accusing others of lying), refused to document claims, pretended not to
>>see posts which contain documented refutation of his claims (even when
>>they have been emailed to him), engaged in actual libel, and generally
>>conducted himself with such complete lack of intellectual and factual
>>integrity that there seems to be no point in taking the time to read and
>>respond. For detailed and documented evidence of this, please refer to
>
>>URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

Mr. Giwer enagaes in rational discourse:

> Asshole.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:02 PDT 1996
Article: 38423 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 21 May 1996 13:38:36 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 92
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard Schultz) wrote:
>
>>Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:
>
>>: It is understandable why you have never posted the P Chem
>>: equations [sic] after this statement.
>
>>Does this mean that you plan to give a source for you claim that HCN is
>>a byproduct of coke combustion, or retract that claim in light of the
>>evidence to the contrary posted here?
>
> That was NEVER my claim. I simply said that more HCN would
>PROBABLY be produced by the Kremas than was ever used in any
>extermination program. I added later that it was a normal
>pollutant produced by the combustion process.
>
> Now of course you can pretend that things said near the end of a
>discussion stand alone but that will only indicate you are newbie
>to public discussions.
>
> So you see, I can not retract your straw man as I never said your
>straw man.
>
> However, your fellow chemist mislead people by playing games with
>the formal definition of burning into believing it was not a
>normal by product.

Now let’s examine what was actually said:

On February 22, 1996 Mr. Giwer made some rather interesting comments on the
production of “HCN” from burning atmospheric nitrogen:

…

Yes, Virginia, there is nitrogen in the atomsphere and yes , Virginia,
it does burn. (Giwer, Re: Open Gallon of Paint – paint one door –
throw the rest away)

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:03 PDT 1996
Article: 38424 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 21 May 1996 13:41:30 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:38424 alt.usenet.kooks:24119 alt.flame:12038

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Asshole.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:04 PDT 1996
Article: 38588 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 May 1996 11:36:22 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Yes, you deliberately mislead other people and at no time did you
>correct anyone who was citing you as the authority for saying
>that HCN production was not possible. That is a fact.

As usual, Mr. Giwer can provide no evidence for his claim.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:04 PDT 1996
Article: 38591 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 22 May 1996 11:50:38 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 98
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Coke is produced since 1815, and on a large scale before the second
>>war. Even in the 40’s, only CO could cause any trouble. The problem is
>>about the HCN rates on the walls of the ‘vergassungkeller’, one floor
>>beneath the furnacies. You should give a look on the composition of
>>the coal oven gasses to know the rate of the HCN in the average coal
>>heating conditions (1000°C-1400°C). The HCN rate is ridiculous low.
>>Nothing to ‘stick’ on the walls.
>
> As I said, in the last 40 years.
>
> NOR did I at any time say anything about sticking to any walls.
>I mentioned simply that the chimneys would PROBABLY have put out
>more HCN than was used in any gassing.
>
> You will notice that our unethical chemist here will avoid any
>reference to that original statement at all costs.

On the contrary, I am not the one ignoring inconvenient facts. When Mr.
Giwer was asked to explain why the chimneys would put out more HCN (a
statement that is wrong by the way). On February 22,1996 offered a completely
ridiculous explanation:

…

Yes, Virginia, there is nitrogen in the atomsphere and yes , Virginia,
it does burn. (Giwer, Re: Open Gallon of Paint – paint one door –
throw the rest away)

He has since this time been repeatedly asked to explain:

Mr. Giwer claimed that the EPA supported him, but could not produce
evidence. Mr. Giwer claimed that I had lied, that I had claimed the EPA
lied, and that I had been unethical. He presented no evidence for any
of these claims. One begins to wonder whether he could have erred in
making such claims.

Mr. Giwer says:

> But since it is an acid, it has nothing to do with quantity.
>Whatever would react would “stick” as you so quaintly put it.
>
> And the quaint phrasing indicates you have not the least idea
>what you are talking about but repeating what others have said.

I wonder if he could be projecting here.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:05 PDT 1996
Article: 38663 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 22 May 1996 17:13:33 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, you deliberately mislead other people and at no time did you
>>>correct anyone who was citing you as the authority for saying
>>>that HCN production was not possible. That is a fact.
>
>>As usual, Mr. Giwer can provide no evidence for his claim.
>
> I am certain it is all at Nizkor. Anyone interested can
>certainly find it.

Mr. Giwer proves my point!

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Wed May 22 23:43:06 PDT 1996
Article: 38680 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsgate.duke.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!venus.sun.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: 22 May 1996 17:26:07 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <Drtp1q[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>I could see that the lips and tips of the noses were a bluish
>>color. Some of them had their closed, other’s eyes rolled. The
>>bodies were dragged out of the gas chambers and inspected by a
>>dentist, who removed finger rings and gold teeth…

> Don’t you think it curious that he sees the color characteristic
>of cyanide rather than of CO poisoning?

Is Mr. Giwer arguing that cyanosis is not a symptom of CO poisoning?
OSHA seems to disagree, but perhaps they’re lying:

OSHA Chemicals>> Carbon Monoxide

NM Carbon Monoxide
SYN CO; Diesel Exhaust Component
IMIS 0560
CAS 630-08-0
NIOSH RTECS FG3500000
DOT 1016 18
DESC Colorless, odorless gas.
MW: 28 BP: -313 F VP: >1 atm MP: -326
F
INCOM Strong oxidizers
OSHA 50 ppm, 55 mg/m3
TLV 25 ppm, 29 mg/m3 TWA
REL 35 ppm 8 hr TWA; 200 ppm Ceiling
SYMP T Headaches; tachypnea; nausea; weakness, dizziness, confusion,
halucinations; cyanosis; depressed, ST segment of electrocardiogram;
angina; syncope
HLTH Asphyxiation, Chemical anoxia (HE17)
ORG CVS, lungs, blood, CNS
SLC1 MEDIA: Direct Reading Passive Monitor (Draeger Datalogger, 0-999ppm)
MAX T: 480 minutes
ANL 1: Direct Reading
. REF: 2 (OSHA ID-209) SAE: 0.07 CLASS: Fully Validated
MEDIA: Five Layer Aluminized Gas Sampling Bag (5 Liter)
MAX V: 5.0 Liters MAX F: 0.05 L/Min (TWA)
ANL 1: Gas Chromatography; GC/DID
REF: 2 (OSHA ID-210) SAE: 0.04 CLASS: Fully Validated
SAM2 DET. TUBE Available from OSHA Cincinnati Lab: Carbon
. Monoxide 4-1La
DET. TUBE (low): Kitagawa, 106S, 10-250 ppm
. Sensidyne, 1La, 8-1000 ppm
. Kitagawa, 100, 5-1000 ppm
. Kitagawa, 106SA, 5-1000 ppm
DET. TUBE (high):Draeger, CH20601, 10-3000 ppm
. MSA, 487334, 10-3000 ppm
. Sensidyne, 1L, 5-2000 ppm
. Kitagawa, 106SH, 0.1-0.2%
MIRAN 1A &and; 1B: MIN. Det. Con. 2.1 ppm at 4.7 um
MIRAN 103: Range 100 ppm at 4.61 um
WIPE No
DIV I
BRANCH SE
.

From [email protected] Fri May 24 07:18:24 PDT 1996
Article: 38881 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: 23 May 1996 15:04:15 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 93
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>I could see that the lips and tips of the noses were a bluish
>>>>color. Some of them had their closed, other’s eyes rolled. The
>>>>bodies were dragged out of the gas chambers and inspected by a
>>>>dentist, who removed finger rings and gold teeth…
>
>>> Don’t you think it curious that he sees the color characteristic
>>>of cyanide rather than of CO poisoning?
>
>>Is Mr. Giwer arguing that cyanosis is not a symptom of CO poisoning?
>>OSHA seems to disagree, but perhaps they’re lying:
>
>>OSHA Chemicals>> Carbon Monoxide
>>
>> NM Carbon Monoxide
>> SYN CO; Diesel Exhaust Component
>> IMIS 0560
>> CAS 630-08-0
>> NIOSH RTECS FG3500000
>> DOT 1016 18
>> DESC Colorless, odorless gas.
>> MW: 28 BP: -313 F VP: >1 atm MP: -326
>> F
>> INCOM Strong oxidizers
>> OSHA 50 ppm, 55 mg/m3
>> TLV 25 ppm, 29 mg/m3 TWA
>> REL 35 ppm 8 hr TWA; 200 ppm Ceiling
>> SYMP T Headaches; tachypnea; nausea; weakness, dizziness, confusion,
>> halucinations; cyanosis; depressed, ST segment of electrocardiogram;
>> angina; syncope
>> HLTH Asphyxiation, Chemical anoxia (HE17)
>> ORG CVS, lungs, blood, CNS
>> SLC1 MEDIA: Direct Reading Passive Monitor (Draeger Datalogger, 0-999ppm)
>> MAX T: 480 minutes
>> ANL 1: Direct Reading
>> . REF: 2 (OSHA ID-209) SAE: 0.07 CLASS: Fully Validated
>> MEDIA: Five Layer Aluminized Gas Sampling Bag (5 Liter)
>> MAX V: 5.0 Liters MAX F: 0.05 L/Min (TWA)
>> ANL 1: Gas Chromatography; GC/DID
>> REF: 2 (OSHA ID-210) SAE: 0.04 CLASS: Fully Validated
>> SAM2 DET. TUBE Available from OSHA Cincinnati Lab: Carbon
>> . Monoxide 4-1La
>> DET. TUBE (low): Kitagawa, 106S, 10-250 ppm
>> . Sensidyne, 1La, 8-1000 ppm
>> . Kitagawa, 100, 5-1000 ppm
>> . Kitagawa, 106SA, 5-1000 ppm
>> DET. TUBE (high):Draeger, CH20601, 10-3000 ppm
>> . MSA, 487334, 10-3000 ppm
>> . Sensidyne, 1L, 5-2000 ppm
>> . Kitagawa, 106SH, 0.1-0.2%
>> MIRAN 1A &and; 1B: MIN. Det. Con. 2.1 ppm at 4.7 um
>> MIRAN 103: Range 100 ppm at 4.61 um
>> WIPE No
>> DIV I
>> BRANCH SE
>>.
>
> Argue with this guy and Keren who swears by him. Pinkish. Do
>you have a problem with this eyewitness? Just say so. One of
>them is lying.

Does Mr. Giwer have evidence that victims of CO poisoning can never look
pinkish? Does he think it’s a binary operation? Either all CO victims
are cyanotic or else all CO victims are pinkish? One wishes Mr. Giwer
would be more explicit in what claim he is making. Does he claim that
CO victims are never cyanotic? Does he claim that CO victims are never
pinkish? Of course, he will not give a straight answer because:

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Sat May 25 00:41:47 PDT 1996
Article: 12038 of alt.flame
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,alt.usenet.kooks,alt.flame
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 21 May 1996 13:41:30 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:38424 alt.usenet.kooks:24119 alt.flame:12038

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Asshole.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Sat May 25 01:13:21 PDT 1996
Article: 39059 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: 24 May 1996 13:05:30 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 66
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Does Mr. Giwer have evidence that victims of CO poisoning can never look
>>pinkish? Does he think it’s a binary operation? Either all CO victims
>>are cyanotic or else all CO victims are pinkish? One wishes Mr. Giwer
>>would be more explicit in what claim he is making. Does he claim that
>>CO victims are never cyanotic? Does he claim that CO victims are never
>>pinkish? Of course, he will not give a straight answer because:
>
> Trying to decieve people again?

When Mr. Giwer has no rational response he resorts to ad hominem
attacks. If Mr. Giwer is not trying to “decieve [sic]” anyone, then why
won’t he answer two simple questions. Does Mr. Giwer have evidence
contrary to what I posted from OSHA that shows that CO victims are never
cyanotic? Does Mr. Giwer have evidence that CO victims never appear
pinkish?

I thought not. Watch for more ad hominem arguments from Mr. Giwer in
this space.

Mr. Giwer can provide no evidence of decption on my part. When Mr.
Giwer has clearly lost an argument he resorts to ad hominem attacks.

> It is come to be expected of you.
>
> Come back when you can do better.

Mr. Giwer can provide no evidence of decption on my part. When Mr.
Giwer has clearly lost an argument he resorts to ad hominem attacks.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Sat May 25 01:13:24 PDT 1996
Article: 39074 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 24 May 1996 14:48:18 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> But since it is an acid, it has nothing to do with quantity.
>>>Whatever would react would “stick” as you so quaintly put it.
>
>>With a strong acid, certainly. Prussic acid is weaker than CO2.
>
> CO2 is not an acid.

Would Mr. Giwer consider CO2 dissolved in water an acid? Yes or no?

From [email protected] Sat May 25 07:26:04 PDT 1996
Article: 39129 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!news.mcgill.ca!newsflash.concordia.ca!newsfeed.pitt.edu!scramble.lm.com!news.math.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism,edm.general,ab.general,can.general,tor.general,van.general,calgary.general,alt.bonehead.matt.giwer,alt.usenet.kooks
Subject: Re: Guns and Liberty
Followup-To: edm.general,ab.general,can.general,tor.general,van.general,calgary.general,alt.bonehead.matt.giwer,alt.usenet.kooks
Date: 24 May 1996 22:11:54 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 86
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <Pine.NEB.3.93.960524134432.11293A-10000[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu
Xref: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca alt.revisionism:39129 ab.general:9716 can.general:78515 van.general:8735 alt.usenet.kooks:24303

Please remove this thread from alt.revisionism; it has no bearing on the
historicity of the holocaust.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:

>From [email protected] Sat Mar 23 14:39:28 PST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Is Giwer a Troll? Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike.

Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we
should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
said:

I don’t know how to indentify jews. Why don’t you tell me?

Right, come get me, it will make my religous fervor come true.

I know it is going to happen so just say anything and I will
know I am being persecuted. I can be a martyr! Please let me take a
number for a gas chamber.

You assholes sound just like the nuns with the glossy eyes
talking about the Christian martyrs.

I don’t really mean to interrupt your sexual arousal but please
stop inflicting this upon the rest of the world.

Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

: You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up.

From [email protected] Sun May 26 12:23:51 PDT 1996
Article: 39254 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: 25 May 1996 15:33:33 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 81
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Does Mr. Giwer have evidence that victims of CO poisoning can never look
>>>>pinkish? Does he think it’s a binary operation? Either all CO victims
>>>>are cyanotic or else all CO victims are pinkish? One wishes Mr. Giwer
>>>>would be more explicit in what claim he is making. Does he claim that
>>>>CO victims are never cyanotic? Does he claim that CO victims are never
>>>>pinkish? Of course, he will not give a straight answer because:
>>>
>>> Trying to decieve people again?
>
>>When Mr. Giwer has no rational response he resorts to ad hominem
>>attacks. If Mr. Giwer is not trying to “decieve [sic]” anyone, then why
>>won’t he answer two simple questions. Does Mr. Giwer have evidence
>>contrary to what I posted from OSHA that shows that CO victims are never
>>cyanotic? Does Mr. Giwer have evidence that CO victims never appear
>>pinkish?
>
>>I thought not. Watch for more ad hominem arguments from Mr. Giwer in
>>this space.
>

Mr. Giwer essentially admits he was wrong by changing the topic to HCN.
We were discussing the symptom of CO poisoning. When Mr. Giwer is
proved wrong he 1) engages in ad hominem attacks, 2) tries to change the
subject.

Refutations to Mr. Giwer’s misrepresentation of my position on HCN is
available elsewhere. Mr. Giwer can provide no evidence for his claim
that I have decieved or admitted to decieving. Mr. Giwer was wrong then
as he is now.

> Then perhaps you will explain all the people who spread the word
>that I lie by stating that I lied when I said that bones burned.
>All of those who proved I lied when I said HCN was produced in
>coke fires. Who was it who deliberately started those false
>claims and has now retracted the deception?
>
> It is you who engaged in the willful and deliberate character
>assassination as you well know. And you instigated it and now
>these claims are on your shoulders. I seem to recall there is
>something in the Hebrew religion that holds what you did to be
>particularly culpable. But then you are most likely an atheist
>and don’t give a damn about anything but tribal membership.
>
> But of course those who called me a liar for claiming that bones
>burn and that there is HCN production is fires are saying they
>were never decieved. In that event they are calling themselves
>as particularly culpable as you are in fact wehn they called me
>a liar for what they now claim they know is true.
>
> You started this. You are responsible for it. And you know it.

Translation: Mr. Giwer knows he is wrong. He cannot provide evidence
that CO victims are never pinkish; he cannot provide evidence that they
are never cyanotic. In short…

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Sun May 26 12:23:52 PDT 1996
Article: 39266 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 25 May 1996 17:28:11 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <4o2v <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>>Now, if Giwer is talking about the bodies in the muffles, and NOT coke
>>combusted in the furnace- as he was ORIGIONALLY, I would say that Giwer is
>>trying to change his claim of HCN production in the furnaces! Could it be
>>that Giwer, knowing that his claim of HCN production from coke in the in
>>the furnaces is completely bogus, is desperately trying to jump ship and
>>claim that he was taling about _bodies combusting in the muffle_?
>
> Excuse me, but you are not making much sense here. Are you
>saying there were not bodies burned? Or are you saying bodies
>are not organic? Are you saying that 120-160 lbs of human body
>is not “plenty”?

Bodies contain organics and yes these organics burn. I believe the
topic was production of HCN. Mr. Giwer fails to present evidence for
its production. I note that he has dropped his original claim that N2
burns and forms HCN (a laughable statement).

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Sun May 26 12:23:53 PDT 1996
Article: 39299 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci3!newsfeed.internetmci.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!lll-winken.llnl.gov!venus.sun.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: 25 May 1996 21:29:18 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

> But of course in either case a more complete work up or pathology
>needs be done. And again I note references to color are rather
>rare. And it was striking the first place we find the right
>indication for cyanide it is in a camp that used CO where if
>there was any mention of color it should have been of pink.

Does Mr. Giwer disagree with OSHA on cyanosis being a symptom of CO
poisoning?

> But as a bottom line we really should not make too much of the
>color. It was simply striking by its rarity and being in the
>wrong place.

Translation: Mr. Giwer recognizes he was wrong, but as usual will not
admit it.

Perhaps, that’s because…

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Sun May 26 17:34:21 PDT 1996
Article: 39470 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: 26 May 1996 13:52:56 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

In this paragraph Mr. Giwer claims that a victim of CO poisoning should
not look cyanotic. In actuality cyanosis is a sgn of CO poisoning.
The pinkish color is only present in some victims:

>>> But of course in either case a more complete work up or pathology
>>>needs be done. And again I note references to color are rather
>>>rare. And it was striking the first place we find the right
>>>indication for cyanide it is in a camp that used CO where if
>>>there was any mention of color it should have been of pink.

I previously posted evidence that OSHA claims cyanosis as a sign of CO
poisoning. I asked:

>>Does Mr. Giwer disagree with OSHA on cyanosis being a symptom of CO
>>poisoning?

When it is clear to Mr. Giwer that he has made a statement that is not
correct and that such has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of
reasonable people, it is Mr. Giwer’s practice to engage in ad hominem
attacks:

> You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
>atheist Jew. Now I have no idea what game you are trying to play
>at this point in the message but I have said nothing about OSHA
>so why do you not post it first? Or so you disagree with the
>NAVSEA manual on turbine exhaust poisoning? But of course, YOU
>FIRST! I made up mine. you deal with yours first.
>
>>> But as a bottom line we really should not make too much of the
>>>color. It was simply striking by its rarity and being in the
>>>wrong place.
>
>>Translation: Mr. Giwer recognizes he was wrong, but as usual will not
>>admit it.

Mr. Giwer adds more fodder for my documentation of his antisemitism:

>
> A better translation is
>
> You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
>atheist Jew.
>
> But if this is not clear enough I can and have gone further in
>noting that all the Jews in this conference have condoned your
>behavior by their silence and are no better than you. And that
>includes all of them and yes, that means you.

Mr. Giwer can present no evidence of deception on my part.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Sun May 26 17:34:22 PDT 1996
Article: 39471 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: 26 May 1996 13:55:28 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 137
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <4oa0bd$9nd@boris.eden.com>, Mike Curtis <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Matt Giwer) wrote:
>
>
>> You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
>>atheist Jew.
>
>I guess we need to store this in the Gewish anti-Semitic statement
>file.

Indeed!

Is Matt Giwer an antisemite? You be the judge:

>From [email protected] Sat Mar 23 14:39:28 PST 1996
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism Subject: Re: Is Giwer a Troll? Message-ID:
<[email protected]>

You pathetic, primative bastards are all alike.

Just as we do not disturb the strange tribes of the Amazon we
should not disturb the strange tribes of Juda or David.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
said:

I don’t know how to indentify jews. Why don’t you tell me?

Right, come get me, it will make my religous fervor come true.

I know it is going to happen so just say anything and I will
know I am being persecuted. I can be a martyr! Please let me take a
number for a gas chamber.

You assholes sound just like the nuns with the glossy eyes
talking about the Christian martyrs.

I don’t really mean to interrupt your sexual arousal but please
stop inflicting this upon the rest of the world.

Matt Giwer ([email protected]) wrote:

: You lovers of a hyphenated god need to grow up.

Article 89860 of alt.revisionism:
Path: nntp.Stanford.EDU!news.Stanford.EDU!agate!usenet.kornet.nm.kr!usenet.etri.re.kr!news.kreonet.re.kr!bofh.dot!news.dacom.co.kr!arclight.uoregon.edu!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: ‘The Bodies Were Dragged Out Of the Gas Chambers’
Date: Sun, 26 May 1996 07:02:50 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 43
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl10-59.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Sun May 26 2:03:11 AM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

>> But of course in either case a more complete work up or pathology
>>needs be done. And again I note references to color are rather
>>rare. And it was striking the first place we find the right
>>indication for cyanide it is in a camp that used CO where if
>>there was any mention of color it should have been of pink.

>Does Mr. Giwer disagree with OSHA on cyanosis being a symptom of CO
>poisoning?

You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
atheist Jew. Now I have no idea what game you are trying to play
at this point in the message but I have said nothing about OSHA
so why do you not post it first? Or so you disagree with the
NAVSEA manual on turbine exhaust poisoning? But of course, YOU
FIRST! I made up mine. you deal with yours first.

>> But as a bottom line we really should not make too much of the
>>color. It was simply striking by its rarity and being in the
>>wrong place.

>Translation: Mr. Giwer recognizes he was wrong, but as usual will not
>admit it.

A better translation is

You are of course a willfully deceitful, character assassinating,
atheist Jew.

But if this is not clear enough I can and have gone further in
noting that all the Jews in this conference have condoned your
behavior by their silence and are no better than you. And that
includes all of them and yes, that means you.

From [email protected] Mon May 27 12:17:33 PDT 1996
Article: 39528 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!imci2!news.internetMCI.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 26 May 1996 14:09:14 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 118
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>>Now, if Giwer is talking about the bodies in the muffles, and NOT coke
>>>>combusted in the furnace- as he was ORIGIONALLY, I would say that Giwer is
>>>>trying to change his claim of HCN production in the furnaces! Could it be
>>>>that Giwer, knowing that his claim of HCN production from coke in the in
>>>>the furnaces is completely bogus, is desperately trying to jump ship and
>>>>claim that he was taling about _bodies combusting in the muffle_?
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but you are not making much sense here. Are you
>>>saying there were not bodies burned? Or are you saying bodies
>>>are not organic? Are you saying that 120-160 lbs of human body
>>>is not “plenty”?
>
>>Bodies contain organics and yes these organics burn. I believe the
>>topic was production of HCN. Mr. Giwer fails to present evidence for
>>its production. I note that he has dropped his original claim that N2
>>burns and forms HCN (a laughable statement).
>
> Actually it was you who attempted in mid stream to change the
>criteria for bodies self combusting and failed to continue the
>discussion. It was also you who got me called a liar for
>claiming that bones burn.

I believe the topic of conversation was the production of HCN in
furnaces and not the fact that combustion of bodies is exothermic
(another area in which Mr. Giwer has advertised his ignorance.).

> I have dropped no such claim as you are well aware. All you were
>doing was using the formal meaning of the term burning to make it
>appear I was lying and those you deceived claimed I was lying for
>saying that HCN was a “burn” byproduct.

Mr. Giwer claims not to have dropped his claim regarding HCN. Perhaps,
he could address the following:

On February 22, 1996 Mr. Giwer made some rather interesting comments on the
production of “HCN” from burning atmospheric nitrogen:

…

Yes, Virginia, there is nitrogen in the atomsphere and yes , Virginia,
it does burn. (Giwer, Re: Open Gallon of Paint – paint one door –
throw the rest away)

It is the practice of Mr. Giwer to respond to rational argument with ad
hominem attaccks:

> Thus you have engaged in willful and deliberate character
>assassination. As I have noted before, it is only in this
>conference in 15 years of experience that such things have
>occurred and then by self identified Jews.
>
> Were you not an atheist you would not have done such a thing.
>Were there any rightieous Jews on this conference they would have
>publically condemned you for what you have done.
>
> But there are none and that means everyone who posts on this
>conference and reads this post without exception.
>
> Yes, I mean you.
>
> And you personally, Green, are working very hard to give Jews a
>bad name. But then you are not alone. The Gang of Seven is
>right behind you.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Mon May 27 15:50:17 PDT 1996
Article: 39649 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!fury.berkshire.net!news.albany.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!venus.sun.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: The Ultimate Extermination System
Date: 26 May 1996 21:56:24 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>
>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>[email protected] (Richard J. Green) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Now, if Giwer is talking about the bodies in the muffles, and NOT coke
>>>>>>combusted in the furnace- as he was ORIGIONALLY, I would say that Giwer is
>>>>>>trying to change his claim of HCN production in the furnaces! Could it be
>>>>>>that Giwer, knowing that his claim of HCN production from coke in the in
>>>>>>the furnaces is completely bogus, is desperately trying to jump ship and
>>>>>>claim that he was taling about _bodies combusting in the muffle_?
>>>>>
>>>>> Excuse me, but you are not making much sense here. Are you
>>>>>saying there were not bodies burned? Or are you saying bodies
>>>>>are not organic? Are you saying that 120-160 lbs of human body
>>>>>is not “plenty”?
>>>
>>>>Bodies contain organics and yes these organics burn. I believe the
>>>>topic was production of HCN. Mr. Giwer fails to present evidence for
>>>>its production. I note that he has dropped his original claim that N2
>>>>burns and forms HCN (a laughable statement).
>>>
>>> Actually it was you who attempted in mid stream to change the
>>>criteria for bodies self combusting and failed to continue the
>>>discussion. It was also you who got me called a liar for
>>>claiming that bones burn.
>
>>I believe the topic of conversation was the production of HCN in
>>furnaces and not the fact that combustion of bodies is exothermic
>>(another area in which Mr. Giwer has advertised his ignorance.).
>
> You appear to be admitting you were playing another of your
>deceptive games on the difference between “self combusting” and
>exothermic.

On the contrary, Mr. Giwer’s reading skills could use some work. I said
no such thing. Mr. Giwer clearly stated that the combustion of bodies
is not exothermic. He was wrong. This thread, however, is about Mr.
Giwer’s incorrect assertions about the production of HCN. Mr. Giwer
believes that atmospheric nitrogen is burnt to produce HCN. He is
wrong, and therefore trying to change the topic.

> Take your games and play with someone else or yourself if no one
>else is available.

Mr. Giwer can provide no evidence of game playing on my part.

URL http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt

From [email protected] Tue May 28 07:55:27 PDT 1996
Article: 39809 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!thor.atcon.com!news.nstn.ca!news.dal.ca!torn!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!news.msfc.nasa.gov!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Holocaust a Riddle Without Soviet Union
Date: 27 May 1996 17:42:25 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <4oaf3r[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Ehrlich606 <[email protected]> wrote:

>I find it amusing that no one engages in heavy-duty value judgments about
>the homicidal nature of Russian culture, or talks about the Russian
>”responsibility” to its victims. OTOH, such judgments about Germans are
>common. Reason: such comments about Germans sell books.

I believe that Mr. Erlich is wrong here. Many people engage in
heavy-duty value judgements about Russian responsibility to the victims
of Stalinist crimes.

>2) The Holocaust is about the victimization of the Jewish people at the
>hands of the Nazi ideology. The crimes of Stalin are about the
>victimization of many, including many Jews, at the hands of the Soviet
>ideology. The manner in which millions were liquidated to make the kind
>of the social and political order the ideologies demanded seem roughly
>similar, although the Germans appear to have been a little bit more high
>tech. It seems to me that there is a similarity that should not be
>discounted: it is called TOTALITARIANISM and is worth review. (the
>classic text is of course, Brzezinski and Carl Friedich, “Totalitarianism”).

Certainly there are some similarities. This is not news. Arendt’s
ideas on totalitarianism certainly apply to Stalinism as well as Nazism.
There are also differences. While the similarities and differences
between Stalinism and Nazism is worthy of discussion, it has little to
do with the historical fact of the holocaust that some in this news
group would deny. BTW- Carl Friedrich was my mother’s thesis advisor,
so I am curious about Mr. Ehrlich’s reference to this text. Is it possible
that Mr. Ehrlich studied with Friedrich?
—
—————————————————————————-
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
[email protected] Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:15 PDT 1996
Article: 39934 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!vertex.tor.hookup.net!hookup!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!bofh.dot!arclight.uoregon.edu!news.dacom.co.kr!bofh.dot!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Pellets, shower, porous pillars…
Date: 28 May 1996 11:32:58 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 28
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <4oecbb$4cf@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Ceacaa <[email protected]> wrote:

> And if there _was_ (which I >doubt) a
>>problem with HCN dispersion if the Zyklon was so suspended, what >would
>>have stopped the Nazis from simply lowering it on subsequent >gassing
>until
>>they found the optimun height for maximum lethality? After all, >we KNOW
>>the Nazis used Zyklon B with maximum lethal effects….
>
> I speculated that keeping the Zyclon at ceiling level
>would have greatly slowed the dispersion of the gas.
>Further, there would have been a tendency, on cold days,
>for the warm air of the Leichenkeller to escape upward
>out through the vents, taking the gas with it.

Can Mr. Ceacaa give us any reason to believe his speculation?
Does Mr. Ceacaa have a guess for the Pasquil-Gifford stability class od
the local in question? Or is his speculation totally without any
rational foundation?

Regards,

From [email protected] Wed May 29 06:02:16 PDT 1996
Article: 39970 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!bug.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!samba.rahul.net!rahul.net!a2i!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Ehrlich
Date: 28 May 1996 11:38:13 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 24
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
DvdThomas <[email protected]> wrote:
>G. McFee wrote:
>
>>> No it isn’t. It is Marduk. Gordon Kenneth Hilary Marduk.
>>
>>Stein.
>
>Is that Gordon Stein Kenneth Hilary Marduk, or Gordon Kenneth Hilary Stein
>Marduk, or Gordon Kenneth Stein Hilary Marduk, or Gordon Kenneth Hilary
>Marduk Stein, or Stein Gordon Kenneth Hilary Marduk? Inquiring minds want
>to know. Not me though. (I’m curious enough alright; no mind.)

Perhaps it’s Bob Hunt David Doubting Agathist Yggdrasil Thomas (Smith?).

Regards,

Rich Green

From [email protected] Wed May 29 09:56:53 PDT 1996
Article: 40000 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!newsfeed.direct.ca!op.net!bofh.dot!en.com!in-news.erinet.com!izzy.net!aanews.merit.net!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!newsrelay.iastate.edu!news.drake.edu!news.physics.uiowa.edu!math.ohio-state.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.cftnet.com!ns2.mainstreet.net!viper.inow.com!newshub.internex.net!newshub1.internex.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Mr. McVay’s translation service needed!
Date: 28 May 1996 11:21:50 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <27MAY1996103847[email protected]> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Matt Giwer <[email protected]> wrote:

> Are you saying that I should have insulting the Jewish reputation
>for integrity by saying only Jew and thus implying that we is
>observant?

From [email protected] Fri May 31 14:34:47 PDT 1996
Article: 40316 of alt.revisionism
Path: nizkor.almanac.bc.ca!news.island.net!news.bctel.net!imci2!imci4!newsfeed.internetmci.com!nntp-hub2.barrnet.net!news.Stanford.EDU!not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Richard J. Green)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Chkdsk Weirdness
Date: 30 May 1996 21:46:33 -0700
Organization: Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <Pine.A32.3.92a.960529212622.100310D-100000@homer09.u.washington.edu> <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: d31rz0.stanford.edu

In article <[email protected]>,
Gord McFee <[email protected]> wrote:
>In article
><Pine.A32[email protected]>,
>Kimberley Ahlf <[email protected]> said:
>
>>>
>>> > Are you saying that OS/2 folks are better than a.r folks? You two
>>> > timing little weasel.
>>>
>>> No, I wasn’t saying that, but I wouldn’t be surprised if a large
>percentage
>>> of deniers use Windows. 🙂
>
>
>>The most elegant of prose rolls from the most elegant of keyboards
>>harnessed to the most elegant of computers: Macintosh- there is no
>>denying true elegance.
>
>Something tells me I should never have made that Windows remark. 🙂

Probably because it’s obvious that unix is the superior operating
system. 🙂

Mr. McFee is, as far as I can determine, a troller whose only
interest is in causing fights over which is the best operating system.
While he can sound superficially plausible, he has advertised the
superiority of OS2 while ignoring the manifest superiority of unix
(while accusing a.r. folks of being less helpful with his OS problems
than OS2 folks), refused to document claims of the superiority of OS2,
pretended not to see bugs in the OS which are not documented (even when
they have effects on his e-mail), has been a victim of actual libel, and
generally conducted himself with such complete lack of intellectual and factual
understanding of the posts of Dr. Giwer and Dr. Moran that there seems to be
some fun to be had by taking the time to read and respond. For detailed and
documented evidence of this, please refer to

URL http://www.almanac.bce.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/m/mcfee.finstein.stein.mcvay

The Aktion Reinhard Death Camps

Auschwitz Birkenau

Bergen-Belsen

Buchenwald

Chelmno

Dachau

Maidanek (Majdanek)

Mauthausen

Nordhausen

Belzec

Treblinka

Mittelbau Dora

Gusen

Westerbork

Matthias Giwer

John Hron

Ken McVay

Steve Thomas

Fairview Technologies

Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Muslim Brotherhood: Islamic Extremists and the…

The Heritage Front

The Anti-Defamation League

Green Richard 2

Latest article

Who’s On First: The Fairview Server

Fairview Technologies: BC Response

Fairview Technologies

The History of Lies

Materials