Thousand dollar wager, Giwer Matt

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

>>Subject: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
>>From: [email protected] (Jamie McCarthy)
>>Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:01:27 -0400
>>Message-ID:
>>
>>Since Matt Giwer appears to be trying to back away from his earlier
>>braggadocio about “controlling this conference” [1], and simultaneously
>>to attack his opponents for doing exactly what he is accused of, I think
>>a response is necessary…
>
>What I see from Matt Giwer’s posts are pretty reasonable.

He lies. I have offered a wager of $1,000 payable to the 501(c)(3)
organization of the winner’s choice that I can prove this to courtroom
standards before a neutral arbiter of the American Arbitration
Association.

He has accused me of doing things I have not done. He has done the
same to others. He has deceptively edited my posts in his
responses, deleting text without warning and replying to a false and
distorted version of my argument. He smears everyone for the actions of
unknown persons. This is reasonable? You and I have very different
definitions of the word.

>But I do see a lot of vicious and hateful attacks on him. It’s possible
>that now and then, after many such attacks, he might respond.

And it’s possible that now and then, after being libeled by Mr. Giwer,
some people might get vicious and hateful.

>Are you saying that the attacks on Mr Giwer are ok, but his response
>are not?

I would suggest that the truth is OK and lying is not. Mr. Giwer
lies. You are defending a liar. Would you like to accept my wager if he
does not?

>
>>Note that the topic here is net abuse, not revisionism…
>
>The anti-revisionist abuse here is appalling.

Please tell us what you are defining as abuse.

>Are you doing anything at all to squealch this viciousness? Are you
>approaching the servers of the anti-revisionists?

One identifiable user, [email protected]om, seems to have moved over to
Netcom and has not been forging articles lately. Mr. Giwer claims an
unidentified person mailbombed him. (Hebrew text was allegedly emailed
from an Israeli gopher site – amusingly, Mr. Giwer insisted that the
Israeli government or someone with root access did it, though in fact this
is not necessary.) Mr. Giwer accuses an unnamed shadowy “them” for
Marduk’s actions and the alleged actions of the mailbomber. (Mr. Giwer
could, of course, have manufactured the mailbombing himself to claim
martyrdom. He has no real evidence other than his own word, and he is
provably a liar. But I am prepared to believe the mailbombing claim
anyway.)

>>My claim is that Matt Giwer’s intentions are to make alt.revisionism
>>useless to anyone who wants to discuss rationally the phenomenon of
>>revisionism and/or specific arguments and claims of revisionists…
>
>Some of the anti-revisionists respond to the revisionists rationally, but
>most of them obviously do not. What do you think about this? Shouldn’t
>these people be encouraged to be more civil and decent?

I do try from time to time. Perhaps I should try more often. But
would you say that rudeness should not be protected speech?

>It seems to me that your attitude to all this is very one-sided. You say
>you want rational debate but really you only target one side. I can only
>conclude, from reading all this, that you are yet another Holocaust
>propagandist, or, to coin one of Mr Giwer’s expressions, a
>’Holoterrorist’.

Jumping to conclusions, and rather rude in my opinion given that you
do not have a firm foundation for this accusation.

>I think the last thing you are interested in is rational debate.

So far you have showered us with opinions. Rational debate requires
actual evidence and argument. This too has been sorely lacking in Mr.
Giwer’s posts. I’ve been chasing him on computations for energy required
for cremation – to support his own claims – and all he comes back with is
that _I_ should post _my_ calculations. His claim, his burden of proof.
The last I saw, he falsely accused me of deleting his computations and in
the bargain denied posting an unsupported figure of 30,000 kcal, a post
that I could easily find on DejaNews from little more than a week ago.

Posted/emailed.


Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.

Path: news.voyager.net!aanews.merit.net!imci3!
newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!nntp.primenet.com!
uunet!inXS.uu.net!news2.digex.net!digex.net!
not-for-mail
From: [email protected] (Michael P. Stein)
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
Date: 24 Jun 1996 12:48:42 -0400
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: access1.digex.net

Path: news.voyager.net!aanews.merit.net!news.gmi.edu!
zombie.ncsc.mil!nntp.coast.net!netnews.worldnet.att.net!i
x.netcom.com!news
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 22:45:17 GMT
Organization: images incarnate
Lines: 73
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]>
<[email protected]>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tam-fl5-14.ix.netcom.com
X-NETCOM-Date: Mon Jun 24 5:47:52 PM CDT 1996
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.0.82

[email protected] (Michael P. Stein) wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
>RuthSommer wrote:
>>>Subject: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
>>>From: [email protected] (Jamie McCarthy)
>>>Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:01:27 -0400
>>>Message-ID:
>>>
>>>Since Matt Giwer appears to be trying to back away from his earlier
>>>braggadocio about “controlling this conference” [1], and simultaneously
>>>to attack his opponents for doing exactly what he is accused of, I think
>>>a response is necessary…
>>
>>What I see from Matt Giwer’s posts are pretty reasonable.

> He lies. I have offered a wager of $1,000 payable to the 501(c)(3)
>organization of the winner’s choice that I can prove this to courtroom
>standards before a neutral arbiter of the American Arbitration
>Association.

> He has accused me of doing things I have not done. He has done the
>same to others. He has deceptively edited my posts in his
>responses, deleting text without warning and replying to a false and
>distorted version of my argument. He smears everyone for the actions of
>unknown persons. This is reasonable? You and I have very different
>definitions of the word.

>>But I do see a lot of vicious and hateful attacks on him. It’s possible
>>that now and then, after many such attacks, he might respond.

> And it’s possible that now and then, after being libeled by Mr. Giwer,
>some people might get vicious and hateful.

The first libel in any such exchange was against me in that I was called
without cause, both antisemitic and a nazi.

You folks are doing yeoman’s work attempting to appear as innocent lambs
these days.

What you do not appear to realize is that you trying to claim it to
peope who have experienced it first hand.
========
Newsgroups: alt.revisionism
Subject: Not close inded! Keren bullshits again
From: [email protected] (Matt Giwer)
Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 21:43:39 GMT

Hey, Keren! Where is your story about the Polish “spies” not getting
close this time?

” The second building [at Treblinka] consists of three chambers and a
boiler-room. The steam
generated in the boilers is led by means of pipes to the chambers. There
are terracota floors in
the chambers which become very slippery when wet … All victims had to
strip off their clothes and
shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and
children first, were
driven into the death chambers. Those too slow or too weak to move
quickly were driven on by
rifle butts, by whipping and kicking…Many slipped and fell, the next
victims pressed forward and
stumbled over them. Small children were simply thrown inside. After
being filled up to capacity the
chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes
all was over. ”
IMT XXXII – pp. 156-157.