[UseNet headers trimmed]
From: Michael Stein
Newsgroup: alt.revisionism
Subject: Re: Giwer responds to the charges of net abuse
Date: June 24, 1996
In article <4qhonc$ofi@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
RuthSommer <ruthsommer@aol.com> wrote:
Subject: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
From: Jamie McCarthy
Date: Sat, 22 Jun 1996 04:01:27 -0400
Message-ID: <jamie-2206960401280001@clmx28.dial.voyager.net>
"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, marduk@idirect.com, 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.
[Mr. Giwer responds]
Michael P. Stein wrote:
"He lies. I have offered a wager of $1,000 payable to the 501(c)(3)
organization of the winner's choice that I can prove this to courtroom
standards before a neutral arbiter of the American Arbitration
Association.
"He has accused me of doing things I have not done. He has done the
same to others. He has deceptively edited my posts in his
and replying to a false and
distorted version of my argument. He smears everyone for the actions of
unknown persons. This is reasonable? You and I have very different
definitions of the word."
The first libel in any such exchange was against me in that I was called
without cause, both antisemitic and a nazi.
You folks are doing yeoman's work attempting to appear as innocent lambs
these days.
What you do not appear to realize is that you trying to claim it to
peope who have experienced it first hand.
From: schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il (Richard Schultz)
Subject: Re: Giwer Responds to the Charges of Net Abuse
Date: 26 Jun 1996 04:40:03 GMT
Message-ID: <4qqev3$a7e@cnn.cc.biu.ac.il>
mgiwer@ix.netcom.com wrote:
"The first libel in any such exchange was against me in that I was called
without cause, both antisemitic and a nazi. "
(1) Do you stand by your opinion that the Jewish culture of Eastern
Europe was no great loss?
(2) Do you maintain that expressing such an opinion cannot be reasonably
interpreted to be an expression of antisemitism?
(3) Why do you think that someone's calling you "antisemitic" or "a nazi" is libelous? For your fan club, those terms are compliments, and for everyone else, you never had any reputation that could have been harmed.
-----
Richard Schultz schultr@ashur.cc.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry tel: 972-3-531-8065
Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel fax: 972-3-535-1250
-----
The real trouble with the Jews is that they are cruel. Anybody with a
knowledge of history knows how they tortured poor debtors in secret
catacombs, all through the Middle Ages. Whereas the Nordic is distinguished
by his gentleness and his kind-heartedness to friends, children, dogs,
and people of inferior races.
B. Windrip, _Zero Hour_
The
original plaintext version
of this file is available via
ftp.
[
Index ]