Attack on Alt.Revisionism -- Gate.Net Refuses to Help
Ken McVay OBC
In article <558uaj$3...@panix2.panix.com>,
raks...@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
> Matt Giwer has "declared war" on alt.revisionism and stated that
>he seeks to make it unusable. (For further documentation on this, check
>out http://www.nizkor.org). By posting literally hundreds of messages, he
>has single-handedly managed to drown out almost all rational discussion
What? He's still around?
botbait: mgi...@gate.net Matthias Giwer
--
Nizkor Canada | http://www.nizkor.org
kmc...@nizkor.org |---------------------------------------------
--------------------| An Electronic Holocaust Educational Resource
Search Nizkor: http://www.nizkor.org/search.html
Kevin Filan
Matt Giwer has "declared war" on alt.revisionism and stated that
he seeks to make it unusable. (For further documentation on this, check
out http://www.nizkor.org). By posting literally hundreds of messages, he
has single-handedly managed to drown out almost all rational discussion
to the attack on alt.religion.scientology)
His latest stunt is to forge the From: line on each of his posts,
thereby making killfiles worthless. Gate.net has been informed of this,
but refuses to do anything. (When I forwarded examples of these posts,
they sent a complaint to MY system administrator, accusing me of harassing
them).
If you would like to complain to Gate.net about this abuse of
alt.revisionism and their continuing refusal to do anything about it,
please send complaints to secu...@gate.net. Feel free to send along a
few copies of Giwer's forgeries -- a cursory glance at the newsgroup will
make these clear.
Here is the "Whois" information on gate.net.
CyberGate, Inc. (GATE2-DOM)
1301 West Newport Center Drive
Deerfield Beach, Florida 33442
USA
Domain Name: GATE.NET
Administrative Contact:
Network Administrator, CyberGate (CN313) net...@GATE.NET
954-428-8080
Technical Contact, Zone Contact:
Graham, Sean (SG436) se...@GATE.NET
305-428-4283
Billing Contact:
Administrator, CyberGate Dns (CDA6) dns...@GATE.NET
954-428-4283
Record last updated on 29-May-96.
Record created on 08-Oct-93.
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.GATE.NET 199.227.0.9
NS2.GATE.NET 199.227.0.20
ICM1.ICP.NET 192.94.207.66
NS1.SPRINTLINK.NET 204.117.214.10
NS2.SPRINTLINK.NET 199.2.252.10
The InterNIC Registration Services Host contains ONLY Internet Information
(Networks, ASN's, Domains, and POC's).
Please use the whois server at nic.ddn.mil for MILNET Information.
* * * * *
Peace
Kevin Filan
NotThisis4 Aforgery
raks...@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
> Matt Giwer has "declared war" on alt.revisionism and stated that
>he seeks to make it unusable.
A stereotypical jew lie as we all know.
(For further documentation on this, check
>out http://www.nizkor.org). By posting literally hundreds of messages, he
>has single-handedly managed to drown out almost all rational discussion
>regarding the collective events we call the Holocaust. (This is similar
>to the attack on alt.religion.scientology)
> His latest stunt is to forge the From: line on each of his posts,
>thereby making killfiles worthless.
As a stereotypical Jew/holohugger, you lie. I have never stated my purpose and
you are clearlly a liar in this post.
Gate.net has been informed of this,
>but refuses to do anything. (When I forwarded examples of these posts,
>they sent a complaint to MY system administrator, accusing me of harassing
>them).
CyberGate is an honest and reputable organization and does not give in to
harrassment.
> If you would like to complain to Gate.net about this abuse of
>alt.revisionism and their continuing refusal to do anything about it,
>please send complaints to secu...@gate.net. Feel free to send along a
>few copies of Giwer's forgeries -- a cursory glance at the newsgroup will
>make these clear.
If you would like to harrass gate.net as a copy of this is being sent to them
as an example of the organized harrassment ...
> Domain Name: GATE.NET
=====
Read the information holohuggers fear
http://www.kaiwan.com/~ihrgreg Institute for Historic Revisionism
http://www.codoh.com/ Committee for Open Debate On the Holocaust
http://www.webcom.com/ezundel/english/ Ernst Zundel, Threat to Canadian Security
http://www.alquds.org:80/www/zionism/zionism.html the dark side
http://www.air-photo.com/ what was really there
http://www.adam.com.au/~fredadin/adins/html ADELAIDE
Nizkor: A vast whorehouse of holocaust information
Sara aka Perrrfect
In article <559u0o$1m...@news.gate.net>, notthisis4@forgery2 wrote:
> CyberGate is an honest and reputable organization and does not
give in to
> harrassment.
This is true. That's why they wrote ME the following:
X-Sender: secu...@pop.gate.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:11:07 -0400
To: schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
From: Security Administrator <secu...@gate.net>
Subject: Re: Revenue Canada Investigates JEWISH CHARITIES
We have warned this user about violations against the CyberGate Subscriber's
Agreement. Repeated violations may cause the cancellation of this account.
Teresa Israels
At 11:01 PM 10/24/96 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Dear Sir:
>
>This is to inform you that your subscriber, whose name is Matt Giwer, has
>joined up with your service after being kicked off combase, netcom, and
>worldnet.att.net.
>
>He engages in slander, mail-bombing, forges posts, and other attractive
>behavior. His current "name" here is a blatant attempt to try and trick the
>non-observant into believing that he is Ken McVay
>(kmc...@nizkor.almanac.bc.ca (Ken McVay OBC), the Webmaster of the Nizkor
>Holocaust web site. His excuse to worldnet ("I didn't spell the name the
>same way, so it's not forgery,") didn't sit very well with them, and I hope
>will not sit well with you either.
>
>
>Sara Schwartz
>schw...@infinet.com
>
>In article <54ol1v$1o...@news.gate.net>, kmcv...@oneb.almanac.dc.ac wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
===========================================================================
Security Administrator 1301 W. Newport Ctr. Dr.
CyberGate, Inc. Deerfield Beach, FL 44332
secu...@gate.net 954-428-4283 x 8070
--
"I do not mind lying, but I hate inaccuracy."
Samuel Butler
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
the Christkillers?
That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
documented.
That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
That the JEWISH STERN GANG irresponsibly murdered British and civilians in
Palestine is well documented. The Stern Gang, while in Germany, even
offered to ally themselves with Hitler, as documented!!!
The Zionists continue to murder, even killing UN troops at the Qana
refugee camp.
Why is it that the JEWS do not want the world to know, and to consider
their deeds?
People such as Giwer, Huber, and Ernst Zundel are to be complimented for
providing the truth to those who will listen and read.
DvdThomas
Kevan Filan wrote:
>Matt Giwer has "declared war" on alt.revisionism and stated that
>he seeks to make it unusable. (For further documentation on this, check
>out http://www.nizkor.org). By posting literally hundreds of messages,
he
>has single-handedly managed to drown out almost all rational discussion
>regarding the collective events we call the Holocaust. (This is similar
>to the attack on alt.religion.scientology)
Rational discussion? Damn! Two years here and I missed it. When did
this verbal equivalent of a full eclipse ringed by seven planets occur?
:-)
David Thomas
_________________________________________________________
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man,
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began;
That the Dog returns to his Vomit, and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool's bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the fire;
And after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
--Kipling
David Thomas
CODOH (http://www.codoh.com/)
Andrew Mathis
<acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
>do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
>the Christkillers?
Here we go; flamethrower on flambee...
>That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
>documented.
In one source--the Christian Bible. 1) It's a little one-sided; 2)
The largest Christian church, the Roman Catholic Church, which
encompasses 2/3rds of World Christianity, has renounced this position.
>That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
>Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
Um, the Minister for Nationalities under Lenin was Stalin; then Stalin
took power and kicked out the only powerful Jew in the Soviet Union,
Leon Trotsky, andthen had him killed. Stalin, a non-Jew, was
responsible for the genocides in Soviet Ukraine.
>That the JEWISH STERN GANG irresponsibly murdered British and civilians in
>Palestine is well documented. The Stern Gang, while in Germany, even
>offered to ally themselves with Hitler, as documented!!!
Irresponsibly? While I am no fan of Lehi or Shamir, they were at war
with England. As for these links to Hitler, they remain to be truly
proven.
>The Zionists continue to murder, even killing UN troops at the Qana
>refugee camp.
Nobody at Qana would have had to have died if not for Hizbollah
lobbing shells at Northern Israel. Leave Israel alone,and they'll
leave you alone. That's what Zionism has been saying for 100
years--all we want is to be left alone. It's the Greta Garbo of
political philosophies.
>Why is it that the JEWS do not want the world to know, and to consider
>their deeds?
That we have super powers.
>People such as Giwer, Huber, and Ernst Zundel are to be complimented for
>providing the truth to those who will listen and read.
Giwer--urged me to contact hiim in "realspace," and then threatened to
sue me for harrassment; I still await a subpoena. Meanwhile, no ISP
will hold him for longer than a week 'cause he's such a flake.
Huber has made open threats to me. I had him surgically removed from
Prodigy three months ago or so. He is truly full of sound and fury
(note context).
Zundel is an unrepentant Nazi and admirer of Hitler. Plus, he's nuts.
He believes the Nazis had flying saucers, among other trivia. He
claims to be just a proud German, but his stripes show with every
Zundelgram written by that filthy whore Ingrid Rimland.
And you can quote me on all that.
Andrew Mathis
=================================================================
Shining a flashlight on the ugly underside of the 'net: http://www.webmagazine.com/Features/Hate/splash.html
What's new with Frente? http://www.nj.com/maxwells/july96/frente.html
The Homepage that made Milwaukee famous: http://pages.nyu.edu/~aem0608
"Panu derech Hashem"
--Yeshayahu 40:3
Michael P. Stein
In article <559u0o$1m...@news.gate.net>,
NotThisis4 Aforgery <notthisis4@forgery2> wrote:
>raks...@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
I see the troll's literacy has not improved with the switch to a new
provider.
>> His latest stunt is to forge the From: line on each of his posts,
>>thereby making killfiles worthless.
>
> As a stereotypical Jew/holohugger, you lie. I have never stated my
>purpose and you are clearlly a liar in this post.
Kevin Filan did not make any claim about purpose. All he did was
state an effect of the policy of changing names frequently. Making
killfiles worthless is an effect whether it is intended or not. (At least
it is an effect for some newsreaders; recent models of trn can focus on
the NNTP-Posting-Host line which cannot be forged.)
And Kevin Filan is not Jewish.
But of course the troll is a proven and self-confessed liar.
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/lies/lie-openly-admitted.html
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/index-lies.html
I will say that as long as the troll does not forge a From: line which
makes it seem as if the post came from another actual person, I have no
problem with his using a false name. The troll has however stated that
people too cowardly to post under their own names are scum.
Posted/emailed to Kevin Filan.
--
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Rich Graves
[Cut back to alt.revisionism]
fr...@panix.com (Andrew Mathis) responds to the paranoid psychotic William
Grosvenor:
>
>>That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
>>Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
>
>Um, the Minister for Nationalities under Lenin was Stalin; then Stalin
>took power and kicked out the only powerful Jew in the Soviet Union,
>Leon Trotsky, andthen had him killed. Stalin, a non-Jew, was
>responsible for the genocides in Soviet Ukraine.
Speaking of legitimate historical review, please see:
http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/politics.html
Having met Robert Conquest, I cannot disagree with Furr's harshest
criticisms of him, but I don't have the background to evaluate these
papers. Basically, he says that recent scholarship rejects the
intentionality of the Ukrainian famine, and that while millions died, the
stories of Stalin's and Jewish orders were spread by Nazi supporters in
the Ukraine.
Anyone want to pick up this hot potato?
-rich
Richard Marus
raks...@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
> Matt Giwer has "declared war" on alt.revisionism and stated that
>he seeks to make it unusable. (For further documentation on this, check
>out http://www.nizkor.org).
Is this an example of typically Jewish whining?
> By posting literally hundreds of messages, he
>has single-handedly managed to drown out almost all rational discussion
>regarding the collective events we call the Holocaust. (This is similar
>to the attack on alt.religion.scientology)
Nonsense. You do rather exaggerate sir.
> His latest stunt is to forge the From: line on each of his posts,
>thereby making killfiles worthless.
This is not forgery, it is using an assumed name or title. An alias, a
nom de plume. Quite in order.
> Gate.net has been informed of this,
>but refuses to do anything. (When I forwarded examples of these posts,
>they sent a complaint to MY system administrator, accusing me of harassing
>them).
Quite right too, you little sneak, as you WERE harrassing them.
> If you would like to complain to Gate.net about this abuse of
>alt.revisionism and their continuing refusal to do anything about it,
>please send complaints to secu...@gate.net. Feel free to send along a
>few copies of Giwer's forgeries -- a cursory glance at the newsgroup will
>make these clear.
Wouldn't dream of it. At English schools in my time, sneaks like you
had the stuffing beaten out of them. Have you ever heard the old rhyme
"Tell tale tit...?" It was always aimed with justified revulsion at
whiney, sneaky, little toadies like you. You should be ashamed of
yourself. Fight your own battles out in the open. "Please Sir, Giwer's
chewing gum!!!"
rest snipped in disgust - see original if interested.
Fergus McClelland
>
>Peace
>Kevin Filan
Rich Graves
Wow. It doesn't get any more persuasive than this.
Thanks so much for crossposting to soc.culture.jewish, but you really
don't have to anymore.
-rich
<acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> writes:
>Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
>do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
>the Christkillers?
>
>That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
>documented.
>
>That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
>Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
>
>That the JEWISH STERN GANG irresponsibly murdered British and civilians in
>Palestine is well documented. The Stern Gang, while in Germany, even
>offered to ally themselves with Hitler, as documented!!!
>
>The Zionists continue to murder, even killing UN troops at the Qana
>refugee camp.
>
>Why is it that the JEWS do not want the world to know, and to consider
>their deeds?
>
Ken McVay OBC
William Grosvenor, ashamed of his name, posted the following
as "acumen"
>Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
>do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
>the Christkillers?
Is Mr. Grosvenor now going to add the Roman Empire to his legendary rants?
>That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
>documented.
Documented, yes. Well documented? No. I would suggest that
those who, unlike Mr. Grosvenor, actually have an interest in
the truth get a copy of William Nichol's comprehensive
examination of this issue, "Christian Antisemitism: A History
of Hate." (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1993)
"The Romans Were the Christ-Killers
"The upshot of the gospel accounts is to divert attention from
solid historical fact, nevertheless unmistakably present in
their own accounts, that Jesus was condemned by a Roman court
on a Roman charge, and put to death by a mthod of execution
then used only by the Romans. So successful is this diversion
of attention that to this day countless Christians believe
that the Jews killed Christ.
"No one today blames the Italian people, the putative
descendants of the Romans, for what their ancestors did in
crucifying Jesus. The supposed guilt of the Jews has echoed
down history, justifying innumerable massacres. Even today,
innocent Jewish schoolchildren are being called Christ-killers
by their schoolmates. All this is based on these stories. To
demonstrate their falsehood is not just a scholarly obligation
but a human duty.
"What part, if any, did the Jewish authorities play in the
events leading up to the death of Jesus? Vermes, like a number
of other scholars, is prepared to accept the broad historicity
of the substantially different account in the Fourth
Gospel. There is no mention of a blasphemy charge, or indeed
of any other. The chronology is different, since the
interrogation before Annas is supposed to have taken place on
the night before the beginning of Pesach, instead of during
the festival itself, and the nature of the hearing is
altogether different. Instead of a full-dress religious trial
before the Sanhedron, we have an informal hearing before
Annas, the father-in-law of the high priest Caiaphas,
continued in the latter's house, resulting not in a religious
condemnation but a political decision to hand Jesus over to
the Romans to save life." (Nichols, 108)
Rajiv K. Gandhi
In article <559u0o$1m...@news.gate.net>, notthisis4@forgery2 wrote:
> raks...@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
[snip]
> > His latest stunt is to forge the From: line on each of his posts,
> >thereby making killfiles worthless.
>
> As a stereotypical Jew/holohugger, you lie. I have never stated my
purpose and
> you are clearlly a liar in this post.
While Mr. Filan零 comments are perhaps a bit extreme, you have indeed
stated a purpose - you are little more than a self-admitted troll:
"You keep reading [my posts] and keep posting about them.
That will waste your time while I concentrate on posting the
idiocies of the holohuggers. I will post just enough to you
folks to keep you interested and keep your limited time
wasted. I have 18 hours a day seven days a week if I wish."
- Giwer, Message-ID <50p1ne$6...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>
It gets worse - not only are you a troll, but you are a troll who resorts
to continual lies, harassment, threats, and general prevarication in an
attempt to deny what you know to be truth - you, little man, are completely
devoid of anything resembling decency, morality, and integrity.
For confirmation and reference, please examine the copious documentation
available at <http://www.almanac.bc.ca/cgi-bin/ftp.pl?people/g/giwer.matt>
[big snip]
[posted/emailed]
-------------------
... war begins, I believe, in our hearts. And that is where it must end.
(Hunthausen)
Rajiv K. Gandhi
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95.961031...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>,
<acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
> Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
> do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
> the Christkillers?
>
> That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
> documented.
The Romans were the ones who drove the nails through the feet and hands of
Jesus. Not Jews.
> That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
> Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
So provide the documentation.
> That the JEWISH STERN GANG irresponsibly murdered British and civilians in
> Palestine is well documented. The Stern Gang, while in Germany, even
> offered to ally themselves with Hitler, as documented!!!
Again, provide documentation.
> The Zionists continue to murder, even killing UN troops at the Qana
> refugee camp.
See above.
> Why is it that the JEWS do not want the world to know, and to consider
> their deeds?
YouÄ…re delusional. Get a grip... elsewhere.
> People such as Giwer, Huber, and Ernst Zundel are to be complimented for
> providing the truth to those who will listen and read.
To use truth in the same sentence as Giwer, Huber, or Zundel is to provide
an example of contradictions in terms.
Richard J. Green
In article <55b49t$c...@Networking.Stanford.EDU>,
Rich Graves <rcgr...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[Cut back to alt.revisionism]
>
>fr...@panix.com (Andrew Mathis) responds to the paranoid psychotic William
>Grosvenor:
>>
>>>Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
>>
>>took power and kicked out the only powerful Jew in the Soviet Union,
>>Leon Trotsky, andthen had him killed. Stalin, a non-Jew, was
>>responsible for the genocides in Soviet Ukraine.
>
>Speaking of legitimate historical review, please see:
>
> http://www.shss.montclair.edu/english/furr/politics.html
>
>Having met Robert Conquest, I cannot disagree with Furr's harshest
>criticisms of him, but I don't have the background to evaluate these
>papers. Basically, he says that recent scholarship rejects the
>intentionality of the Ukrainian famine, and that while millions died, the
>stories of Stalin's and Jewish orders were spread by Nazi supporters in
>the Ukraine.
>
>Anyone want to pick up this hot potato?
See my mother's chapter in the following book:
TITLE: Is the Holocaust unique? : perspectives on comparative
genocide /
edited with an introduction by Alan S. Rosenbaum ; with a
foreword
by Israel W. Charny.
IMPRINT: Boulder, Colo. : Westview Press, 1996.
222 p.
Regards,
Rich Green
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard J. Green Dept. of Chemistry
r...@lyman.Stanford.EDU Stanford University
http://www-leland.Stanford.EDU/~redcloud Stanford, CA 94305-5080
"Remember the days of yore,
"Learn the lessons of the generation that came before you."
-Deuteronomy 32:7
Gord McFee
In message <schwartz-ya023180...@news.infinet.com> -
schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)Security Administrator
<secu...@gate.net> writes:
:>
:>In article <559u0o$1m...@news.gate.net>, notthisis4@forgery2 wrote:
:>
:>
:>> CyberGate is an honest and reputable organization and does not
:>give in to
:>> harrassment.
:>
:>This is true. That's why they wrote ME the following:
:>
:>X-Sender: secu...@pop.gate.net
:>Mime-Version: 1.0
:>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:11:07 -0400
:>To: schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
:>From: Security Administrator <secu...@gate.net>
:>Subject: Re: Revenue Canada Investigates JEWISH CHARITIES
:>
:>We have warned this user about violations against the CyberGate Subscriber's
:>Agreement. Repeated violations may cause the cancellation of this account.
:>
:>Teresa Israels
Egads, Sara!! Is the liar-Giwer troll on the verge of being booted from yet
another ISP? Is there a record kept of the most ISPs one has been booted from
in a three-month period? Is the troll closing in on the record? Has he been
booted from so many that he must now call long distance to connect? Inquiring
minds want to know. :-)
Posted and e-mailed.
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Gord McFee
In message <Pine.A41.3.95.961031...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> -
<acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>Thu, 31 Oct 1996 07:55:19 -0700 writes:
:>
:>Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
:>do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
:>the Christkillers?
Yup--those Romans were buggers, no doubt about it.
:>
:>That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
:>documented.
Sure it is. NOT.
:>That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
:>Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
Like the Cambodian genocide? Last I heard, there weren't a whole lot of Jews
in Cambodia, but I am sure the Gruber entity knows better.
:>That the JEWISH STERN GANG irresponsibly murdered British and civilians in
:>Palestine is well documented. The Stern Gang, while in Germany, even
:>offered to ally themselves with Hitler, as documented!!!
As documented in your fetid imagination?
:>The Zionists continue to murder, even killing UN troops at the Qana
:>refugee camp.
:>
:>Why is it that the JEWS do not want the world to know, and to consider
:>their deeds?
Errr... because it's a crock of doo-doo?
:>People such as Giwer, Huber, and Ernst Zundel are to be complimented for
:>providing the truth to those who will listen and read.
Interesting folks you associate with.
D. Citron
Why is this in soc.culture.jewish, fl.general, and alt.revisionism? Why
not alt.pervert, alt.politics.correct, and alt.hemorrhoid? (Because you
clueless Nazis are a pain in the arse!)
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca wrote:
: Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
: do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
: the Christkillers?
: That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
: documented.
Only scumsucking Nazi hatemongers like you perpetuate this belief. Even
the pope says this is not true. But you probably think he is a communist
and a marrano to boot! <g>
Consider for a moment that communism (international socialism) and naziism
(national socialism) are very similar totalitiarian forms of government.
You have more in common with the people you despise than you care to
admit. And Hitler and Stalin did have a pact. (I hope I don't give you
more info than your feeble brain can handle. I know, it's just been washed
and you can't do a thing with it.)
: That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
: Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
I hate to burst your bubble, booby, but the Jews were among the
most-persecuted victims of the communists.
: That the JEWISH STERN GANG irresponsibly murdered British and civilians in
: Palestine is well documented. The Stern Gang, while in Germany, even
: offered to ally themselves with Hitler, as documented!!!
: The Zionists continue to murder, even killing UN troops at the Qana
: refugee camp.
This has been ably refuted by others.
: Why is it that the JEWS do not want the world to know, and to consider
: their deeds?
Why is it that you Nazis disavow their well-documented murderous past,
while wanting to do more of the same? Inquiring minds want to know!
: People such as Giwer, Huber, and Ernst Zundel are to be complimented for
: providing the truth to those who will listen and read.
:
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I suppose
that the uneducated self-described historians you mentioned demonstrate
this.
<g>
John Morris
In <55c9l1$1p...@news.gate.net>, Matt Giwer posting as
notth...@forgery.dot (NotThisis4 Aforgery) wrote:
>raks...@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
>> Matt Giwer has "declared war" on alt.revisionism and stated that
>>he seeks to make it unusable.
> Excuse me but please stop lying like a jew of the third kind. The purpose of
>alt.revisionism is to discuss revisionism. I have said that I will make it
>unuasble only to those who would PERVERT the conference into a discussion of the
>holocaust for which there is at least on other conference that I am aware of.
Thank you for confirming that the "revisionist" case is so weak that
it can brook no opposition.
You have already lost. You just said so.
> My only interest is in stopping the holohuggers from taking over alt.revisionism
>where they have have been so obnoxiously present. Holohuggers have no
>legitimate interest in this conference and no legitimate presense.
>
> My objective is to make their pervsion of the conference unusable to them and
>get it back on track.
Thank you for confirming that the "revisionist" case is so weak that
it can brook no opposition.
You have already lost. You just said so.
--
John Morris <jmo...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
at University of Alberta <Scripture veteris capiunt exempla futuri>
--
The Nizkor Project | http://www.nizkor.org/
Fergus McClelland
schw...@infinet.com (Sara the Prefect) wrote:
Miss Prefect wrote all the stuff below my comments - showing how she
had been trying to get Mr Giwer censored, and banned from his new ISP.
My comment.
Well Miss Prrefect, you certainly live up to your title. Are you in
"The land of the free - the home of the brave?" Do you accept the idea
of free speech? It is clear that you do not. But to go as far as you
have, sneakily whining to a man's ISP behind his back. Aren't you
ashamed of yourself? What you have done is so low, so very low, and
despicable. He was only speaking his mind on usenet, not causing
actual bodily harm. People like you stagger me with their
vindictiveness that is aimed at all who don't crawl to them. Your
slimey actions make me want to puke over you, you really are so vile
that I cannot think of words to describe your repulsiveness. Tell me,
do you think that you behave in the way that Jews in Germany did in
the 1930's and 1940's. It would explain a lot.
I try very hard to mentally put myself in your position, to think the
way you do and understand the behaviour of you and others like you. I
fail, because I haven't the requisite viciousness and because I know
what would happen to me if I did act "your way". I really do fear for
the well-being of people who act the way that you do. For I have
observed that such actions provoke nasty reactions. It has happened
before many times to elitist, arrogant, greedy, cruel groups who find
themselves in an advantageous postion. They get swatted. The Ebo
tribe, who were tall, had their legs chopped off at the knee by the
Tutsis. Did they deserve it? Of course not, but human nature dictates
that these things happen.
Now, I do not know Mr Giwer, but I hereby make it publicly known that
if necessary, in the interests of free speech, if he so wishes, his
postings can be posted using my account here in the UK, or that of
friends of mine in Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Italy. He will
speak.
Fergus McClelland
=======================================================
MISS PREFECT'S ADMISSION OF SLIMEY TROUBLE MAKING
=======================================================
>This is true. That's why they wrote ME the following:
>
>X-Sender: secu...@pop.gate.net
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Fri, 25 Oct 1996 10:11:07 -0400
>To: schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
>From: Security Administrator <secu...@gate.net>
>Subject: Re: Revenue Canada Investigates JEWISH CHARITIES
>
>We have warned this user about violations against the CyberGate Subscriber's
>Agreement. Repeated violations may cause the cancellation of this account.
>
>Teresa Israels
Is this lady Welsh by any chance?
======================================
SARA PREFECT'S LETTER TO GATE NET
Rich Graves
re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland, or Richard Marus, or
whatever he's calling himself today) writes:
>Now, I do not know Mr Giwer,
Oh, come now Fergus, or Richard, or whatever, methinks you doth protest
too much. To familiarize yourself with Mr. Giwer again, you can refer to
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse
>but I hereby make it publicly known that
>if necessary, in the interests of free speech, if he so wishes, his
>postings can be posted using my account here in the UK, or that of
>friends of mine in Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Italy. He will
>speak.
Why yes, Richard, or Fergus, or whatever, of course he will. No one here
has ever disparaged his right to speak, either under his own name or under
his pseudonym. I have repeatedly offered to teach him how to use anonymous
remailers so that he can post under a stable, secure pseudonym.
But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
abusive and dishonest. Now, he has every right to be abusive and dishonest
in his words; a casual look at alt.revisionism, and we all know that
you've taken more than a casual look, will turn up content far more
objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
quick succession for doing so. That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
This group was created for the express purpose of hosting Holocaust denial
and neo-Nazi activism in an appropriate forum. The expression of such
"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
forgery, spamming, and mail-bombing are raising concern is that he happens
to support the Nazi point of view.
He's more than welcome to post through c2.net, too, provided that he
agrees to abide by content-neutral standards of netiquette. He is
certainly not required to post under his own name, but a stable pseudonym,
or an identifiable range of pseudonyms (as used by Dr. Dmitri Vulis),
seems a reasonable thing to ask.
-rich
Rich Graves
Please stop feeding the troll by crossposting this, or any other thread
featuring the troll, to soc.culture.jewish or fl.general.
-rich
Sara aka Perrrfect
In article <327a0973...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
> schw...@infinet.com (Sara the Prefect) wrote:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
added/edited by Mr. McClelland, trying to make it look as if I have this on
my header.
This shows that Mr. McClelland, for all his "outrage," is guilt of the very
same thing as Mr. Giwer. Forgery. Plain and simple.
>
> Miss Prefect wrote all the stuff below my comments - showing how she
> had been trying to get Mr Giwer censored, and banned from his new ISP.
> My comment.
The handle is "Perrrfect," and your statement is absolutely incorrect. What
I did was to report a forgery to an ISP. A completely reasonable act by a
concerned Netizen.
>
> Well Miss Prrefect, you certainly live up to your title. Are you in
> "The land of the free - the home of the brave?" Do you accept the idea
> of free speech?
The handle is "Perrrfect," and yes, I do. But they taught us in 3rd grade
here in America that freedom doesn't come without responsibility for ones'
actions. Don't they teach you that in England anymore? Or did you go to an
anarchist school?
> It is clear that you do not. But to go as far as you
> have, sneakily whining to a man's ISP behind his back. Aren't you
> ashamed of yourself? What you have done is so low, so very low, and
> despicable. He was only speaking his mind on usenet, not causing
> actual bodily harm.
As you quoted my e-mail to gate.net, it's quite plain that I was not
whining. Merely alerting an ISP to a known liar and forger.
Behind his back? Not at all, Mr. McClelland. I made it very clear IN PUBLIC
that I would forward all Mr. Giwer's forgeries to his ISP. So you've lied
again.
What I did was despicable? Really? What about changing someone's header? Is
THAT despicable?
> People like you stagger me with their
> vindictiveness that is aimed at all who don't crawl to them. Your
> slimey actions make me want to puke over you, you really are so vile
> that I cannot think of words to describe your repulsiveness.
Well, the feeling is certainly mutual, Mr. McClelland, and I don't have to
resort to name-calling to make my point.
> Tell me,
> do you think that you behave in the way that Jews in Germany did in
> the 1930's and 1940's. It would explain a lot.
Are you implying that gassing is an appropriate method to deal with people
who notify others of law-breakers? Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
sheet is showing.
> I try very hard to mentally put myself in your position, to think the
> way you do and understand the behaviour of you and others like you. I
> fail, because I haven't the requisite viciousness and because I know
> what would happen to me if I did act "your way".
No, Mr. McClelland. You fail, because you're as morally corrupt as Mr. Giwer.
I really do fear for
> the well-being of people who act the way that you do. For I have
> observed that such actions provoke nasty reactions. It has happened
> before many times to elitist, arrogant, greedy, cruel groups who find
> themselves in an advantageous postion. They get swatted. The Ebo
> tribe, who were tall, had their legs chopped off at the knee by the
> Tutsis. Did they deserve it? Of course not, but human nature dictates
> that these things happen.
What do the Ebo and Tutsis have to do with Mr. Giwer forging headers? You
really amaze me, Mr. McClelland. Since there is no defense for Mr. Giwer's
action, you drag African tribes into the discussion.
>
> Now, I do not know Mr Giwer, but I hereby make it publicly known that
> if necessary, in the interests of free speech, if he so wishes, his
> postings can be posted using my account here in the UK, or that of
> friends of mine in Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Italy. He will
> speak.
>
Mr. McClelland openly acknowledges his boot-licking of Matt Giwer's
law-breaking.
Thanks for the acknowledgement. Now, when you post Mr. Giwer's lies, which
name will he use? And will you allow him to post as "Ken McVay" or "Yale
Edeiken"?
Sara
Fergus McClelland
rcgr...@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:
>re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland, or Richard Marus, or
>whatever he's calling himself today) writes:
>
>>Now, I do not know Mr Giwer,
>
>Oh, come now Fergus, or Richard, or whatever, methinks you doth protest
>too much.
I DOTH, he she or it DOTH protest. THOU DOST protest.
Anyway, I repeat I do NOT know Matt Giwer. I know OF Matt Giwer - in
this group. He lives in Florida. I live in Britain and we have never
met.
You read too much into the "Richard Marus" mistake. The computer had
been previously used by him and I neglected to notice the change of
user name. Remember, it is the signature of a letter or article which
is important. To labour the point, if you had a letter from Bill Gates
on Microsoft paper, would you reply to him by name or write to "Dear
Mr Microsoft or whatever"? I have to dismiss this as being all very
silly. Anyway, I preferred it when you called me Nimrod - and that
didn't appear ANYWHERE in my posting, so it seems that you'll do
whatever you want! Never mind, noblesse oblige - carry on.
>To familiarize yourself with Mr. Giwer again, you can refer to
>
> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
> http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse
No point, I can see no harm done by him. Maybe it is British culture
that enables us to tolerate such trivial matters as you and others are
being so hysterical about.
>>but I hereby make it publicly known that
>>if necessary, in the interests of free speech, if he so wishes, his
>>postings can be posted using my account here in the UK, or that of
>>friends of mine in Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Italy. He will
>>speak.
>
>Why yes, Richard, or Fergus, or whatever,
(Fergus - look at the signature please).
>of course he will. No one here
>has ever disparaged his right to speak, either under his own name or under
>his pseudonym.
They have, as you well know - otherwise, why are they complaining to
his ISP?
>I have repeatedly offered to teach him how to use anonymous
>remailers so that he can post under a stable, secure pseudonym.
Why? His real name or an alias, it is of no real importance.
>But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
>abusive and dishonest.
Of course it is not. It is so blatant, and he must SURELY know it,
that it cannot be either. A minor form of ragging I grant you, but
nothing more. You are once again being hysterical. He uses his OWN sig
file at the end of the message. He writes in his normal manner. The
headers are jokes, misspelled. Only a true idiot could believe either
that it is a real attempt to forge or that it is abusive. Calm down,
the man identified himself clearly. No wonder you all go around
shooting each other if you take such things seriously.
>Now, he has every right to be abusive and dishonest
>in his words; a casual look at alt.revisionism, and we all know that
>you've taken more than a casual look,
Yes, I have kept my eye on this group for the last four months, if
that is what you mean, and thank goodness, I have learned a lot. But,
who is this "We all"? Is this mere histrionics on your part, or are
you talking of some "Group" of people?
> will turn up content far more
>objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
>you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
>quick succession for doing so.
I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
him. The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
because of all that he wrote. They would hardly present the "good"
things that he wrote would they?
>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness. I can
understand blandness in a group where old ladies discuss embroidery
patterns. In a group such as this, the debates MUST lead to
hot-blooded interchanges, name calling and general verbal abuse. I
have seen far, far worse written by Nizcorites and their acolytes than
anything written by Mr Giwer. So many accusations of masturbation,
fornication, defecation, drunkenness, drug-taking, mental stability
and penile size and general foul language aimed at some of those who,
like me, are here seeking Truth.
>This group was created for the express purpose of hosting Holocaust denial
>and neo-Nazi activism in an appropriate forum.
I have no knowledge of why the group was set up, but I have yet to see
any "neo-Nazi activism". How is it defined, so that I can look out for
it?. Saying that someone disagreed with what a Jew says is not good
enough.
>The expression of such
>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>forgery,
No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
jokes.
>spamming,
Means posting an IDENTICAL message to more than five groups. So I
have been led to believe. I have no knowledge of him doing this.
>and mail-bombing
The one and only "mail bombing" seems to have been a reply to a
request by someone. Again, only the parties involved know the truth of
this matter, not you, not me.
>are raising concern is that he happens
>to support the Nazi point of view.
So, the Nazis questioned the figures and causes of death of "The
Holocaust"? According to you they did it, they wouldn't have been
questioning it.
>He's more than welcome to post through c2.net, too, provided that he
>agrees to abide by content-neutral standards of netiquette. He is
>certainly not required to post under his own name, but a stable pseudonym,
>or an identifiable range of pseudonyms (as used by Dr. Dmitri Vulis),
>seems a reasonable thing to ask.
It all amounts to the same thing, whatever he calls himself is
irrelevant, the words he utters will be the same.
Calm down Rich, worse things happen at sea don't you know, put your
six-shooter back in its pouch and chew a bit of tobacco. Mosey on down
to the saloon and have three fingers of old red eye. Make you feel
better.
>-rich
Fergus
Repeat,
Fergus.
(Get the idea?)
Rich Graves
Fergus McClelland wrote:
>
> rcgr...@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:
>
> >That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
> >violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
>
> "Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
> specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness. I can
The specific meaning is discussed at http://www.cm.org/ and
http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html
> >This group was created for the express purpose of hosting Holocaust
> >denial and neo-Nazi activism in an appropriate forum.
> I have no knowledge of why the group was set up, but I have yet to see
> any "neo-Nazi activism". How is it defined, so that I can look out for
> it?. Saying that someone disagreed with what a Jew says is not good
> enough.
Milton Kleim is writing a paper on the subject. In specific terms, Kurt
Stele/Brian Smith has been (forced to be) pretty open about his work for
the National Alliance here. As he's got every right to be. Nobody has
ever complained about Smith's posting habits, because he has not forged,
spammed, or threatened people.
> >The expression of such
> >"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of
> >Mr. Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics
> >of forgery,
> No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
> jokes.
Then why did Giwer, as "Danny Li," and Giwer's friends, as "Hardwire,"
deny for two weeks that it was him?
I agree that Giwer's final breakdown, when he was using clearly invalid
address and his own .signature, would not have been a serious problem if
his posting volume was reasonable. As it was, he was posting the exact
same text at an unreasonable rate; I think he even followed up to one of
your articles with his "Jew Traitor" canned nonsense.
> >spamming,
> Means posting an IDENTICAL message to more than five groups. So I
> have been led to believe. I have no knowledge of him doing this.
Please refer to http://www.cybernothing.org/faqs/net-abuse-faq.html
By even your definition, the Great DoD/CIA Spy Spam qualifies. In order
to increase your knowledge, please see the exchange between Giwer and
Chris Lewis, the dean of the content-neutral despammers, at
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse/
credibility-toilet
I certainly agree that some people here have gotten a bit hysterical in
response to Giwer's net abuse. You must have missed it when I said I
thought Kevin's post, which started this thread, was inappropriate, and
set followups to alt.revisionism only.
I believe Mr. Giwer still has an account active on Netcom. All he must
do is agree to abide by the terms of their acceptable use policy, which
he quite blatantly violated, and he will be back. Let it be soon,
because he's the best possible advertisement for The Nizkor Project: a
foul-mouthed boor friendly with neo-Nazis who is clearly ignorant about
every subject on which he speaks. It is probably unfair to paint all
"revisionists" with such a broad brush, but as long as Mr. Giwer insists
on carrying the "revisionist" torch, he's more than welcome to do so, as
long as he maintains minimal standards of netiquette.
-rich
Kevin Filan
In article <55ao35$j...@access5.digex.net>,
Michael P. Stein <mst...@access5.digex.net> wrote:
>>purpose and you are clearlly a liar in this post.
>
>state an effect of the policy of changing names frequently. Making
>killfiles worthless is an effect whether it is intended or not. (At least
>it is an effect for some newsreaders; recent models of trn can focus on
>the NNTP-Posting-Host line which cannot be forged.)
>
> And Kevin Filan is not Jewish.
Goy." Pity the poor anti-Semite who can't even spot a Jew.
>
> But of course the troll is a proven and self-confessed liar.
A lot of people forge their "From:" line to avoid E-mail spammers,
harassment, etc. If Mr. Giwer were _truly_ concerned about this, he could
choose a name like "cirr...@liver.org" or "beso...@idiot.com" or
anything else he deems necessary. He'd then be safe from E-mail
harassment -- and anyone who wanted to avoid his noise would be able to
enter him into a killfile.
> I will say that as long as the troll does not forge a From: line which
>makes it seem as if the post came from another actual person, I have no
>problem with his using a false name. The troll has however stated that
>people too cowardly to post under their own names are scum.
>
> Posted/emailed to Kevin Filan.
I never complained when Giwer went under his own name -- I
wouldn't complain if he went under any false name he deems fit. His
current behavior, IMHO, is just one more chapter in his self-declared
attempt to make alt.revisionism unusable.
Peace
Kevin Filan
Andrew Mathis
notth...@forgery.dot (NotThisis4 Aforgery) wrote:
> Fucking holohugger.
Gee, Matt, I'm honored. And you're a Nazi. Will you sue me yet?
>fr...@panix.com (Andrew Mathis) wrote:
>><acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>>>Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
>>>do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
>>>the Christkillers?
>>Here we go; flamethrower on flambee...
>>>That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
>>>documented.
>>In one source--the Christian Bible. 1) It's a little one-sided; 2)
>>The largest Christian church, the Roman Catholic Church, which
>>encompasses 2/3rds of World Christianity, has renounced this position.
> And the jew books of it are a recittion fo genocide by the murderous Israelis
>who have not change to this day.
Uh, no.
Deuteronomy and Joshua command and recount the genocide of the seven
tribes of Canaan. HOWEVER, these tribes were still around in King
Davd's time, 250 yrs. (at least) later. Uriah, the first wife of
Bath-Sheba, was a Hittite: one of the seven tribes. Even in Saul's
time there were still Amalekites.
But the fact, Matt, is that the Jewish law of war requires the Jews to
extend peace to a city before it is attacked in a time of war.
>>>That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
>>>Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
>>Um, the Minister for Nationalities under Lenin was Stalin; then Stalin
>>took power and kicked out the only powerful Jew in the Soviet Union,
>>Leon Trotsky, andthen had him killed. Stalin, a non-Jew, was
>>responsible for the genocides in Soviet Ukraine.
> So you agree at a minimum that Lenin's atrocities were jewish atrocities. We
>are down hill from this point.
If you mean that Lenin was responsible for Jewish deaths, yes.
If you mean Lenin was a Jewish genocidal maniac, then no.
>>>That the JEWISH STERN GANG irresponsibly murdered British and civilians in
>>>Palestine is well documented. The Stern Gang, while in Germany, even
>>>offered to ally themselves with Hitler, as documented!!!
>>Irresponsibly? While I am no fan of Lehi or Shamir, they were at war
>>with England. As for these links to Hitler, they remain to be truly
>>proven.
> There was no declared war. It was no different from the Palestineans. They
>were terrorists of the Arafat persuasion.
What right did: a) The English; b) the Turks have to rule over
Palestine?
>>>The Zionists continue to murder, even killing UN troops at the Qana
>>>refugee camp.
>>Nobody at Qana would have had to have died if not for Hizbollah
>>lobbing shells at Northern Israel. Leave Israel alone,and they'll
>>leave you alone. That's what Zionism has been saying for 100
>>years--all we want is to be left alone. It's the Greta Garbo of
>>political philosophies.
> The Hesbollah was lobbing shells into a PALESTTINIAN town. IT is that simple.
>They were shooting at their own people ... but then the Zionists had stolen
>the town by means that would put the Nazis to shame for the lack of legality.
Oh, please; did you get this from the weekly world news? Why would
Hizbollah shell Palestinian towns?
>>>Why is it that the JEWS do not want the world to know, and to consider
>>>their deeds?
>>That we have super powers.
>>>People such as Giwer, Huber, and Ernst Zundel are to be complimented for
>>>providing the truth to those who will listen and read.
>>Giwer--urged me to contact hiim in "realspace," and then threatened to
>>sue me for harrassment; I still await a subpoena. Meanwhile, no ISP
>>will hold him for longer than a week 'cause he's such a flake.
> And you stereotypical lying jew as in YFE continues the same stereotypical lie
>as you do. You are scum. Get used to it.
Sue me, Matt. Sue me or shut up.
Dene Bebbington
NotThisis4 Aforgery <notth...@forgery.dot> wrote:
>raks...@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
>
>> Matt Giwer has "declared war" on alt.revisionism and stated that
>>he seeks to make it unusable.
>
> Excuse me but please stop lying like a jew of the third kind. The
>purpose of
>alt.revisionism is to discuss revisionism.
Yes idiot, and those who wish to discuss revisionism won't necessarily
all be revisionists.
> I have said that I will make it
>unuasble only to those who would PERVERT the conference into a discussion of the
>holocaust for which there is at least on other conference that I am aware of.
What, so now you're the arbiter of who can and cannot post to Usenet?
> My only interest is in stopping the holohuggers from taking over
>alt.revisionism
>where they have have been so obnoxiously present. Holohuggers have no
>legitimate interest in this conference and no legitimate presense.
Absolutely unbelieveable. People who accept the historical event called
the Holocaust have no legitimate interest in a public forum discussing
the Holocaust!!! Jesus, even by Giwer's lousy standards this one takes
the biscuit.
And btw Giwer, perhaps you could post the alt.revisionism FAQ and show
where it explicitly states the newsgroup can only be participated in by
revisionists?
--
Dene Bebbington
"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
Dene Bebbington
Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>schw...@infinet.com (Sara the Prefect) wrote:
>
>Miss Prefect wrote all the stuff below my comments - showing how she
>had been trying to get Mr Giwer censored, and banned from his new ISP.
>My comment.
>
>"The land of the free - the home of the brave?" Do you accept the idea
>of free speech?
Are you implying that free speech is only a one way street? If there is
free speech then this includes being able to complain to his ISP
regarding his forgeries pretending to be posting as Ken McVay and
Nizkor.
>Now, I do not know Mr Giwer, but I hereby make it publicly known that
>if necessary, in the interests of free speech, if he so wishes, his
>postings can be posted using my account here in the UK, or that of
>friends of mine in Ireland, Switzerland, Norway and Italy. He will
>speak.
Hey idiot, nobody is seeking to curb his right to express his opinion,
only to stop him masquerading as others and therefore impugning them by
saying things they generally do not agree with whilst pretending to be
them.
>=======================================================
>MISS PREFECT'S ADMISSION OF SLIMEY TROUBLE MAKING
>=======================================================
>>To: schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)
>>From: Security Administrator <secu...@gate.net>
>>Subject: Re: Revenue Canada Investigates JEWISH CHARITIES
>>
>>We have warned this user about violations against the CyberGate Subscriber's
>>Agreement. Repeated violations may cause the cancellation of this account.
Hmmmm, this ISP has a subscribers agreement which must be adhered to.
Tough luck if Giwer gets thrown off that ISP for violating their rules.
Kevin Filan
In article <327fdff5...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
>misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not constitute forgery. It is not
>your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
>menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
>harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
>uterus rather than her brain.
In _The Mass Psychology of Fascism_, Wilhelm Reich suggested a
connection between sexual repression and fascism. Fascists, he suggested,
invariably were prudish and misogynistic. Given the behavior evidenced by
Alexander "Hopped-Up Cunt" Baron, Matt "Fat Broad" Giwer, and that nasty
little electronic stool sample you just dropped into the middle of
alt.revisionism, I submit Reich was on to something.
>For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
>what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
>intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer. You did not "report a
>forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
>mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
>judge by. Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
>was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
>termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
>point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
>Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
>priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net. I think
>that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
>like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
>whom will you report yourself?
1) In America, truth is an absolute defense to libel. If Ms.
Schwartz can prove her facts, there's not a court in this country that
would find her letter libelous. Ms. Schwartz could easily produce
evidence that Giwer has been guilty of everything she alleged. Do you
deny that Matt Giwer has mailbombed people or altered his "From:" line on
various posts?
2) I usually don't consider E-mail from a system administrator
private unless I'm told otherwise. I probably wouldn't post private
E-mail; on the other hand, I rarely say anything privately I wouldn't say
in public.
Peace
Kevin Filan
Dene Bebbington
NotThisis4 Aforgery <notth...@forgery.dot> wrote:
> Fucking holohugger.
>fr...@panix.com (Andrew Mathis) wrote:
>
>><acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>
>>>Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
>>>do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
>>>the Christkillers?
>
>>Here we go; flamethrower on flambee...
>
>>>That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
>>>documented.
>
>>In one source--the Christian Bible. 1) It's a little one-sided; 2)
>>The largest Christian church, the Roman Catholic Church, which
>>encompasses 2/3rds of World Christianity, has renounced this position.
>
> And the jew books of it are a recittion fo genocide by the murderous
>Israelis
>who have not change to this day.
>
>>>Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
>
>>Um, the Minister for Nationalities under Lenin was Stalin; then Stalin
>>took power and kicked out the only powerful Jew in the Soviet Union,
>>Leon Trotsky, andthen had him killed. Stalin, a non-Jew, was
>>responsible for the genocides in Soviet Ukraine.
>
> So you agree at a minimum that Lenin's atrocities were jewish
>atrocities. We
>are down hill from this point.
Giwer falls further and further into the abyss of gross stupidity. Are
you unable to comprehend a simple sentence Giwer, nothing in Mathis's
statement agreed that "at a minimum Lenin's atrocities were Jewish
atrocities.".
Fergus McClelland
schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>In article <327a0973...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
>> schw...@infinet.com (Sara the Prefect) wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>added/edited by Mr. McClelland, trying to make it look as if I have this on
>my header.
>This shows that Mr. McClelland, for all his "outrage," is guilt of the very
>same thing as Mr. Giwer. Forgery. Plain and simple.
Highty-tightly, high and mighty Miss!
Forgery:
"The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
OED.
Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not constitute forgery. It is not
your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
uterus rather than her brain.
>> Miss Prefect wrote all the stuff below my comments - showing how she
>> had been trying to get Mr Giwer censored, and banned from his new ISP.
>> My comment.
>
>The handle is "Perrrfect," and your statement is absolutely incorrect. What
>I did was to report a forgery to an ISP. A completely reasonable act by a
>concerned Netizen.
For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer. You did not "report a
forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
judge by. Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net. I think
that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
whom will you report yourself?
>>
>> Well Miss Prrefect, you certainly live up to your title. Are you in
>> "The land of the free - the home of the brave?" Do you accept the idea
>> of free speech?
>
>The handle is "Perrrfect,"
To everyone else in the world you may be called Perrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
But to me, you will always be "Prefect".
> and yes, I do. But they taught us in 3rd grade
>here in America that freedom doesn't come without responsibility for ones'
>actions. Don't they teach you that in England anymore? Or did you go to an
>anarchist school?
They never did teach such things in England, probably because it is
instinctive. Nor do we put hand on heart and swear allegiance to a
flag, (though the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown of
course).
I went to a school where we sorted out our own problems. It is not the
done thing to go whimpering and telling tales to the teachers. In
fact, when I was at school, you would be looked down upon by any
teacher for so doing, as you would be by all the other pupils.
>> It is clear that you do not. But to go as far as you
>> have, sneakily whining to a man's ISP behind his back. Aren't you
>> ashamed of yourself? What you have done is so low, so very low, and
>> despicable. He was only speaking his mind on usenet, not causing
>> actual bodily harm.
>
>As you quoted my e-mail to gate.net, it's quite plain that I was not
>whining. Merely alerting an ISP to a known liar and forger.
Why should they care a damn - as long as he pays his bill? It would
only be repeated aggravation by you and others would make them do
anything. It would be to get rid of you and your whining that they
would do anything, not because of him. After all, how would they know
what he was doing without you yelping round their ankles.
Article Unavailable
Sara aka Perrrfect
In article <327fdff5...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
> Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
> misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not constitute forgery. It is not
> your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
> menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
> harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
> uterus rather than her brain.
>
Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
with her uterus" stuff.
It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
> For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
> what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
> intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer.
I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
"reporting a forgery."
> You did not "report a
> forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
> mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
> judge by.
Yes, you do, yet you continue to lie about them.
> Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
> was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
> termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
> point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
> Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
> priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net.
1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?
2. E-mail from system administartors is NOT, IMO, private.
3. There was absolutely no "priviledged" information in Ms. Israels' letter
to me. Another lie.
> I think
> that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
> like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
> whom will you report yourself?
My ISP is quite familiar with me and the actions I have taken. *I* informed
them myself. And unlike Mr. Giwer, I have had the same ISP for 3 years.
> To everyone else in the world you may be called Perrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
> But to me, you will always be "Prefect".
Yes, back to the name-calling. When in doubt, revert to that, eh?
>
> > and yes, I do. But they taught us in 3rd grade
> >here in America that freedom doesn't come without responsibility for ones'
> >actions. Don't they teach you that in England anymore? Or did you go to an
> >anarchist school?
> They never did teach such things in England, probably because it is
> instinctive. Nor do we put hand on heart and swear allegiance to a
> flag, (though the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown of
> course).
Well that makes sense. Since you never learned about personal
responsibility for the consequences of your actions, I suppose you can be
forgiven for defending Mr. Giwer.
Might I suggest a remedial course?
[snip]
> Why should they care a damn - as long as he pays his bill? It would
> only be repeated aggravation by you and others would make them do
> anything. It would be to get rid of you and your whining that they
> would do anything, not because of him. After all, how would they know
> what he was doing without you yelping round their ankles.
>
Why should they care? Ask them! There *is* something called a user's
agreement, and Mr. Giwer was clearly getting close to violating it. THAT'S
WHY HE WAS WARNED.
> Not "again", as I have disproved the "first" there cannot be an
> "again". However, you did NOT "forward all his forgeries" to his ISP,
> you wrote a nasty letter with a sample.
How do you know I didn't forward all his forgeries? In fact, I did. And I
will continue to do so, when he forges the names of others. That is MY
RIGHT, Mr. McClelland.
Article Unavailable
Hardwire
Gord McFee wrote:
> Mr. Giwer, on ISP number 3 (or is it 4?) continues his true "revisionist"
> approach, by lying about his own posts, and lying about his own stated
> intentions. He also, just in passing, erroneously implies that he has
> succeeded at something, whereas the world knows he has failed at everything he
> has tried.
>
> Mr. Giwer stated earlier that his intention was to make this newsgroup useless
> and that he would control it. As we have all noticed, as he is booted from
> ISP to ISP, he has failed--completely--on both counts. Now he is reduced to
> snivelling little whines under assumed, forged or both, names.
>
Oh, but indeed, this post is a direct admission that his control over
this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
would set out to do.
-- Hardwire
Hardwire
[SNIP]
> No point, I can see no harm done by him. Maybe it is British culture
> that enables us to tolerate such trivial matters as you and others are
> being so hysterical about.
And they do seem to get amazingly hysterical don't they?
> >Why yes, Richard, or Fergus, or whatever,
> (Fergus - look at the signature please).
> >of course he will. No one here
> >has ever disparaged his right to speak, either under his own name or under
> >his pseudonym.
>
> They have, as you well know - otherwise, why are they complaining to
> his ISP?
Because they'd have you believe that on the surface they bravo the
utilization of free speech, but in the deep, foul waters of their minds
they detest it or at least detest Giwer's use of it.
> >I have repeatedly offered to teach him how to use anonymous
> >remailers so that he can post under a stable, secure pseudonym.
>
> Why? His real name or an alias, it is of no real importance.
>
I think it stems from the fact that they can't kill file him as easily,
and so would prefer he stick to one handle to make their lives of
censorship that much easier to deal with.
> >But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
> >abusive and dishonest.
> Of course it is not. It is so blatant, and he must SURELY know it,
> that it cannot be either. A minor form of ragging I grant you, but
> nothing more. You are once again being hysterical. He uses his OWN sig
> file at the end of the message. He writes in his normal manner. The
> headers are jokes, misspelled. Only a true idiot could believe either
> that it is a real attempt to forge or that it is abusive. Calm down,
> the man identified himself clearly. No wonder you all go around
> shooting each other if you take such things seriously.
>
HA... ROTFL... how TRUE.
> >Now, he has every right to be abusive and dishonest
> >in his words; a casual look at alt.revisionism, and we all know that
> >you've taken more than a casual look,
> Yes, I have kept my eye on this group for the last four months, if
> that is what you mean, and thank goodness, I have learned a lot. But,
> who is this "We all"? Is this mere histrionics on your part, or are
> you talking of some "Group" of people?
They denied any implication of a "group" before, this line of
questioning should get you a nice long reply from everyone involved of
complete innocence.
>
> > will turn up content far more
> >objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
> >you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
> >quick succession for doing so.
>
> I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
> complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
> If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
> written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
> Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
> him. The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
> people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
> because of all that he wrote. They would hardly present the "good"
> things that he wrote would they?
Of course not, the companies themselves must maintain neutrality lest
they be accused of favoring any particular party of individuals, or any
idea thereof. The companies themselves simply found it not to their
liking to receive hundreds of post per week complaining about Giwer and
so dumped him to save themselves the headache. At an average rate of
$20 dollars per month, the loss of one user is nothing to be concerned
with.
Article Unavailable
Hardwire
Sara aka Perrrfect wrote:
>
> In article <327a0973...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
> (Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
> > schw...@infinet.com (Sara the Prefect) wrote:
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> added/edited by Mr. McClelland, trying to make it look as if I have this on
> my header.
>
> This shows that Mr. McClelland, for all his "outrage," is guilt of the very
> same thing as Mr. Giwer. Forgery. Plain and simple.
> >
Whoa! Gentlemen, and ladies, the trial is over and the findings
arrrrreeee...
Everyone is guilty, the moon really is made out of green cheese, and
yes, the cow DID indeed run away with the spoon.
Mr. McClelland is guilty of pulling your leg clear and simple. He's
gotten your goat by editing his return reply to your post, and damnit, I
say BRAVO!
> > Miss Prefect wrote all the stuff below my comments - showing how she
> > had been trying to get Mr Giwer censored, and banned from his new ISP.
> > My comment.
>
> The handle is "Perrrfect," and your statement is absolutely incorrect. What
> I did was to report a forgery to an ISP. A completely reasonable act by a
> concerned Netizen.
>
And I say... BULLSHIT. What you did was to harass an ISP with a clear
and blatant attack on one of it's users. To have complained about a post
the user made in the first place was out of line, but to include a
distorted historical review about how many other ISP's you've managed to
get the user barred from is downright unacceptable and LOW, really LOW.
> > It is clear that you do not. But to go as far as you
> > have, sneakily whining to a man's ISP behind his back. Aren't you
> > ashamed of yourself? What you have done is so low, so very low, and
> > despicable. He was only speaking his mind on usenet, not causing
> > actual bodily harm.
>
> As you quoted my e-mail to gate.net, it's quite plain that I was not
> whining. Merely alerting an ISP to a known liar and forger.
>
Face it, you were WHINING. You were whining for all you're worth to an
ISP in the hopes they'd dump the big, bad Giwer from their service
rather than listen to your incessant WHINING.
> Behind his back? Not at all, Mr. McClelland. I made it very clear IN PUBLIC
> that I would forward all Mr. Giwer's forgeries to his ISP. So you've lied
> again.
That's right.. everyone's a liar.. forgot that rule.. how terribly
unmindful of me.
>
> What I did was despicable? Really? What about changing someone's header? Is
> THAT despicable?
Ooohh.. wow, that's SOOO despicable. I'm reeling from the intent to get
your goat. Boy, how low someone must be to perpetrate such an act.
Oh GET over IT, will you?
>
> > People like you stagger me with their
> > vindictiveness that is aimed at all who don't crawl to them. Your
> > slimey actions make me want to puke over you, you really are so vile
> > that I cannot think of words to describe your repulsiveness.
>
> Well, the feeling is certainly mutual, Mr. McClelland, and I don't have to
> resort to name-calling to make my point.
Why not, you've done it in the past. Why stop now?
>
> > Tell me,
> > do you think that you behave in the way that Jews in Germany did in
> > the 1930's and 1940's. It would explain a lot.
>
> Are you implying that gassing is an appropriate method to deal with people
> who notify others of law-breakers? Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
> sheet is showing.
As is your lack of any common sense.
>
> > I try very hard to mentally put myself in your position, to think the
> > way you do and understand the behaviour of you and others like you. I
> > fail, because I haven't the requisite viciousness and because I know
> > what would happen to me if I did act "your way".
>
> No, Mr. McClelland. You fail, because you're as morally corrupt as Mr. Giwer.
>
Ouch, boy, you really can throw 'em can't you? I bet he's so degraded
by that remark that he's.... he's.... laughing at you.
Article Unavailable
Hardwire
Kevin Filan wrote:
>
> In _The Mass Psychology of Fascism_, Wilhelm Reich suggested a
> connection between sexual repression and fascism. Fascists, he suggested,
> invariably were prudish and misogynistic. Given the behavior evidenced by
> Alexander "Hopped-Up Cunt" Baron, Matt "Fat Broad" Giwer, and that nasty
> little electronic stool sample you just dropped into the middle of
> alt.revisionism, I submit Reich was on to something.
And I submit that you have a talent for posting totally irrellevant and
nonsensical bullshit.
> >priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net. I think
> >that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
> >like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
> >whom will you report yourself?
>
> 1) In America, truth is an absolute defense to libel. If Ms.
> Schwartz can prove her facts, there's not a court in this country that
> would find her letter libelous. Ms. Schwartz could easily produce
> evidence that Giwer has been guilty of everything she alleged. Do you
> deny that Matt Giwer has mailbombed people or altered his "From:" line on
> various posts?
Don't sidestep. You went from bad to worse in this post. First
something unrelated to the topic of discussion, and now something from
left field.
>
> 2) I usually don't consider E-mail from a system administrator
> private unless I'm told otherwise. I probably wouldn't post private
> E-mail; on the other hand, I rarely say anything privately I wouldn't say
> in public.
>
And are you as susceptible to making yourself an ass in email as in
public?
-- Hardwire
Hardwire
Sara aka Perrrfect wrote:
>
> Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
> answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
> speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
> with her uterus" stuff.
>
> It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
>
Oh come on Sarah, why the desperate attempt at trying to turn his words
against him? Just come right out and call him an asshole and be done
with it. All this beating around the bush.. so scholarly, so reserved,
so idiotic.
> > For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
> > what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
> > intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer.
>
> I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
> "reporting a forgery."
I'm afraid that even in America what you wrote would be defamatory, even
whiny... really whiny.... for God's sake woman, stop fucking whining!
>
> > You did not "report a
> > forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
> > mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
> > judge by.
>
> Yes, you do, yet you continue to lie about them.
Liar, liar, pants on fire..... geeeez. Where is an honest man?!!
Everyone in this goddamned conference is a liar!
>
> > Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
> > was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
> > termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
> > point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
> > Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
> > priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net.
>
> 1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
> point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?
In hopes it would make you happy, and get you to STOP WHINING.
>
> 2. E-mail from system administartors is NOT, IMO, private.
Unfortunately information about a paying customer is, even if it is to
confirm that a warning has been given.
>
> 3. There was absolutely no "priviledged" information in Ms. Israels' letter
> to me. Another lie.
See above... and stop calling everyone a liar... god, you are SOOOO
whiny.
> > To everyone else in the world you may be called Perrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
> > But to me, you will always be "Prefect".
>
> Yes, back to the name-calling. When in doubt, revert to that, eh?
>
You have. Stop being so self-righteous and come down off the mountain,
oh holiest of holies. And please, STOP WHINING.
> > They never did teach such things in England, probably because it is
> > instinctive. Nor do we put hand on heart and swear allegiance to a
> > flag, (though the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown of
> > course).
>
> Well that makes sense. Since you never learned about personal
> responsibility for the consequences of your actions, I suppose you can be
> forgiven for defending Mr. Giwer.
>
> Might I suggest a remedial course?
Might I suggest a sense of humour, and a course in how to STOP WHINING?
>
> [snip]
>
> > Why should they care a damn - as long as he pays his bill? It would
> > only be repeated aggravation by you and others would make them do
> > anything. It would be to get rid of you and your whining that they
> > would do anything, not because of him. After all, how would they know
> > what he was doing without you yelping round their ankles.
> >
>
> Why should they care? Ask them! There *is* something called a user's
> agreement, and Mr. Giwer was clearly getting close to violating it. THAT'S
> WHY HE WAS WARNED.
[BUZZER] There was NOTHING in the user agreement with CyberGate that
stated that what he was doing was not permitted.
Sorry Sarah, you do not win the car! ...and stop whining!
Article Unavailable
william c anderson
Hardwire (hard...@vertigo.combase.com) wrote:
: Everyone in this goddamned conference is a liar!
Wait a sec--isn't this sentence a logical contradiction?
Bill
Hardwire
How good of you to notice. Step to the front of the class, and please,
do keep replying, I'd like to keep this thread of the newsgroup
growing... it's very amusing.
-- Hardwire
Sara aka Perrrfect
In article <84730700...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
<hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
[three different moronic replies snipped for lack of any sense of logic or
reason to them]
I can't figure out what's more pathetic. Mr. "Hardwire"'s pathetic attemps
to defend the actions of Matt Giwer, or his insisting that I stop being
polite in my responses to Mr. McClelland.
He says:
> Oh come on Sarah, why the desperate attempt at trying to turn his words
> against him? Just come right out and call him an asshole and be done
> with it. All this beating around the bush.. so scholarly, so reserved,
> so idiotic.
Obviously, Mr. "Hardwire" does not understand the basic tenets of civilized
debate. Which makes him a perfect buddy for Mr. Giwer.
I'm terribly sorry (NOT) to disappoint Mr. "Hardwire," but I see no reason
to drop all the way down to his level.I will continue to be polite, even in
the face of his drivel and spew.
Sara
By the way, why the pseudonym? Afraid of us mean old Jooos?
And thanks for managing to spell a simple four-letter proper name
incorrectly throughout all three of your diatribes.
Hardwire
Hilary Ostrov wrote:
>
> [Follow-ups set]
>
> In <84730364...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
> <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>
> Oh, Mr. Hardwire! I see that you are still here! Didn't you tell us
> that you didn't have time for this and were leaving?
>
Ya know, I suddenly found some unused time laying around, and I thought
it might be amusing to come back... but all that is water under the
bridge.
How the HELL are ya?
> >this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
> >reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
> >rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
> >would set out to do.
>
> To the contrary, Mr. Hardwire. If you were not so blinded by the
> self-appointed advocacy role you have chosen to adopt, you would see
> that we are wasting far more time pointing out the errors of your
> assumptions than engaging in anything which could be remotely
> construed as "rebuking" the troll.
Oh, but again, I point out the numerous threads wherein, by "NOT
DIRECTLY" posting replies to Giwer, you are successfully taking up at
least 50% of the feed on this newsgroup. Interesting isn't it? He
doesn't need to spam the group, all of you as a whole are helping to do
that quite successfully on your own.
>
> I am quite sure that when you figure out how to use Deja News
> efficiently - and take the time to examine what you find objectively
> [rather than through your troll-coloured glasses] - you will see that
> compared to his "heyday" when he was in <pseudo reason mode>,
> responses to troll-posts are very few and far between.
And AGAIN, I say, WHO CARES??? The goal is being acheived with every
response on every Giwer related thread in here. So thpppppbbtt!
> If you think such behaviour constitutes "control over this newsgroup,"
> you fool no one but yourself (and perhaps the troll and his other
> acolytes!)
>
And I proudly state, that YES, I do believe that he is having an immense
amount of success controlling this newsgroup, as shown from the
multitude of posts chokeing it into oblivion.
> Posted and e-mailed to Mr. Hardiwire, cc Mr. McFee.
>
Also, I'd enjoy it immensely if you deemed it unnecessary to email me
any posts you make replies to here on this newsgroup. I can read them
quite nicely through my newsreader, I do not want, nor do I need, carbon
copies in my mailbox. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
-- Hardwire
Hardwire
Sara aka Perrrfect wrote:
>
> In article <84730700...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
> <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>
> [three different moronic replies snipped for lack of any sense of logic or
> reason to them]
>
> I can't figure out what's more pathetic. Mr. "Hardwire"'s pathetic attemps
> to defend the actions of Matt Giwer, or his insisting that I stop being
> polite in my responses to Mr. McClelland.
>
Who's defending? I never claimed to be defending... and now, it's all
in the past, I look boldly to the future, to watch you and those like
you keep on responding to inane threads again and again and again.....
it's soooo amusing.
> He says:
>
> > Oh come on Sarah, why the desperate attempt at trying to turn his words
> > against him? Just come right out and call him an asshole and be done
> > with it. All this beating around the bush.. so scholarly, so reserved,
> > so idiotic.
>
> Obviously, Mr. "Hardwire" does not understand the basic tenets of civilized
> debate. Which makes him a perfect buddy for Mr. Giwer.
Yes, my basis of civilized debate involves speaking what's on your mind,
and not trying to be brilliant and daring in the attempt to twist
someone's words around to impune them. No dear SARAH (I sort of like
the mispelling), I feel that true debate occurs anywhere but here.
>
> I'm terribly sorry (NOT) to disappoint Mr. "Hardwire," but I see no reason
> to drop all the way down to his level.I will continue to be polite, even in
> the face of his drivel and spew.
>
Well here's some bile, and puke for ya as well dear. Bllleeeeccchhh.
> Sara
>
> By the way, why the pseudonym? Afraid of us mean old Jooos?
Why should I be, I find nothing wrong with Jews, have some MARVELOUS
friends that are Jewish. Love 'em more than anything in the world.
However, I detest morons, and there seems to be an abundant overgrowth
of them here, present company included.
>
> And thanks for managing to spell a simple four-letter proper name
> incorrectly throughout all three of your diatribes.
>
You're welcome, quite welcome. I rather fancy it, sort of in the same
manner that I fancy "Prefect". A nice ring... and it looks good on
paper too.
-- Hardwire
John Morris
[snip]
>Oh, but indeed, this post is a direct admission that his control over
>this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
>reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
>rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
>would set out to do.
Your "disinterested" defense of Giwer is about as interesting as
watching turnips grow.
>-- Hardwire
Killfiled.
Danny Mittleman
In article <55qs50$b...@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) writes...
>Hardwire (hard...@vertigo.combase.com) wrote:
>
>: Everyone in this goddamned conference is a liar!
>
>Wait a sec--isn't this sentence a logical contradiction?
>
>Bill
Yes it is, but then you can't possibly really be Bill, now can you.
not daniel david mittleman
===========================================================================
For more information on the Holocaust see The Nizkor Project
Europe: http://www1.de.nizkor.org/~nizkor/
North America: http://www.nizkor.org/
or not.
Hardwire
Chuck Ferree wrote:
>
> Chuck Ferree wrote:
>
> Oooooo, tha Fatbroads are pissed. Prepare for a strafing run all you
> denier turkeys. Especially that 'lil twerp hardwire. yeah I bet! ;-)
>
Bring it on Stick Boy.
> Sara aka Perrrfect wrote:
> >
> > In article <84730700...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
> > <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>
> Hardwire, really is a hairpin, twisted out of shape by a very nervous
> person.
> Chuck
Yay! I'm a hairpin... yippeee.... whooohooo.
-- Hardwire
Hardwire
John Morris wrote:
>
> In <84730364...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
> <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Oh, but indeed, this post is a direct admission that his control over
> >this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
> >reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
> >rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
> >would set out to do.
>
> Your "disinterested" defense of Giwer is about as interesting as
> watching turnips grow.
>
Which I'm sure you've had plenty of time to experience. Remember, I'm
just a hairpin... whoohooo....
> >-- Hardwire
>
> Killfiled.
>
Alright!!! I've made it onto a killfile!! Yay!
-- Hardwire
Hardwire
Danny Mittleman wrote:
> >Oh, but indeed, this post is a direct admission that his control over
> >this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
> >reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
> >rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
> >would set out to do.
>
> No he isn't. And even the white power rangers can see that. You have
> to be Giwer or someone directly connected with him because you are so
> far out on a limb in his defense. And he is so far gone no sane person
> would support his behavior.
>
Gee, guess I'm just insaaaaaannneeeee... that's it..
Remember boys and girls, when someone's actions are in direct opposition
to your own, call them "insane".
Bite me, pink-boy.
-- Hardwire
Hardwire
Danny Mittleman wrote:
>
> In article <55qs50$b...@lendl.cc.emory.edu>, lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu (william c anderson) writes...
> >Hardwire (hard...@vertigo.combase.com) wrote:
> >
> >: Everyone in this goddamned conference is a liar!
> >
> >Wait a sec--isn't this sentence a logical contradiction?
> >
> >Bill
>
> Yes it is, but then you can't possibly really be Bill, now can you.
>
> not daniel david mittleman
Hey, what fun! Carry on.
-- (not)Hardwire
Danny Mittleman
Someone hard wired to Giwer at <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> writes...
>Gord McFee wrote: ^^^^^^^
>
>> Mr. Giwer, on ISP number 3 (or is it 4?) continues his true "revisionist"
>> approach, by lying about his own posts, and lying about his own stated
>> intentions. He also, just in passing, erroneously implies that he has
>> succeeded at something, whereas the world knows he has failed at everything he
>> has tried.
>>
>> Mr. Giwer stated earlier that his intention was to make this newsgroup useless
>> and that he would control it. As we have all noticed, as he is booted from
>> ISP to ISP, he has failed--completely--on both counts. Now he is reduced to
>> snivelling little whines under assumed, forged or both, names.
>>
>
>this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
>reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
>rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
>would set out to do.
No he isn't. And even the white power rangers can see that. You have
to be Giwer or someone directly connected with him because you are so
far out on a limb in his defense. And he is so far gone no sane person
would support his behavior.
daniel david mittleman
Chuck Ferree
Chuck Ferree wrote:
Oooooo, tha Fatbroads are pissed. Prepare for a strafing run all you
denier turkeys. Especially that 'lil twerp hardwire. yeah I bet! ;-)
Hilary Ostrov
[Follow-ups set]
In <84730364...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
<hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
Oh, Mr. Hardwire! I see that you are still here! Didn't you tell us
that you didn't have time for this and were leaving?
>Gord McFee wrote:
>> Mr. Giwer, on ISP number 3 (or is it 4?) continues his true "revisionist"
>> approach, by lying about his own posts, and lying about his own stated
>> intentions. He also, just in passing, erroneously implies that he has
>> succeeded at something, whereas the world knows he has failed at everything he
>> has tried.
>>
>> Mr. Giwer stated earlier that his intention was to make this newsgroup useless
>> and that he would control it. As we have all noticed, as he is booted from
>> ISP to ISP, he has failed--completely--on both counts. Now he is reduced to
>> snivelling little whines under assumed, forged or both, names.
>>
>Oh, but indeed, this post is a direct admission that his control over
>this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
>reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
>rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
>would set out to do.
To the contrary, Mr. Hardwire. If you were not so blinded by the
self-appointed advocacy role you have chosen to adopt, you would see
that we are wasting far more time pointing out the errors of your
assumptions than engaging in anything which could be remotely
construed as "rebuking" the troll.
I am quite sure that when you figure out how to use Deja News
efficiently - and take the time to examine what you find objectively
[rather than through your troll-coloured glasses] - you will see that
compared to his "heyday" when he was in <pseudo reason mode>,
responses to troll-posts are very few and far between.
His behaviour is no different than that of an attention-craving child
throwing temper tantrums. The troll has backed himself into a corner
and sits there wallowing in his ineptitude, wearing his dunce's cap,
and refusing to learn from his mistakes.
If you think such behaviour constitutes "control over this newsgroup,"
you fool no one but yourself (and perhaps the troll and his other
acolytes!)
Posted and e-mailed to Mr. Hardiwire, cc Mr. McFee.
hro
=======================
Hilary Ostrov
e-mail: hos...@uniserve.com
http://users.uniserve.com/~hostrov/
Co-Webmaster - The Nizkor Project http://www.nizkor.org/
Gord McFee
In message <schwartz-ya023180...@news.infinet.com> -
schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)Wed, 06 Nov 1996 08:25:38 -0500
writes:
:>
:>In article <327fdff5...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
:>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
:>
:>
:>> Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
:>> misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not constitute forgery. It is not
:>> your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
:>> menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
:>> harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
:>> uterus rather than her brain.
:>>
:>
:>Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
:>answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
:>speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
:>with her uterus" stuff.
:>
:>It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
Indeed. I think we all know what old Fergus thinks with. :-)
[deleted]
--
Gord McFee
I'll write no line before its time
Mark Van Alstine
In article <55rl9s$1c28$1...@news-s01.ca.us.ibm.net>, gmc...@ibm.net (Gord
McFee) wrote:
> In message <schwartz-ya023180...@news.infinet.com> -
> schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect)Wed, 06 Nov 1996 08:25:38 -0500
> writes:
> :>
> :>In article <327fdff5...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
> :>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
> :>
> :>
> :>> Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
> :>> misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not constitute forgery. It is not
> :>> your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
> :>> menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
> :>> harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
> :>> uterus rather than her brain.
> :>>
> :>
> :>Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
> :>answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
> :>speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
> :>with her uterus" stuff.
> :>
> :>It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
>
> Indeed. I think we all know what old Fergus thinks with. :-)
Yes, and it has an affinity for knot-holes....
Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Van Alstine
In article <32811cf3...@news.srv.ualberta.ca>,
John....@ualberta.ca (John Morris) wrote:
> In <84730364...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
> <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >Oh, but indeed, this post is a direct admission that his control over
> >this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
> >reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
> >rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
> >would set out to do.
>
> Your "disinterested" defense of Giwer is about as interesting as
> watching turnips grow.
>
> >-- Hardwire
>
> Killfiled.
Ditto.
Sara aka Perrrfect
In article <84733377...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
<hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
> Alright!!! I've made it onto a killfile!! Yay!
>
> -- Hardwire
And this shows quite nicely the maturity level we're dealing with here.
Sara
Danny Mittleman
In article <schwartz-ya023180...@news.infinet.com>, schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) writes...
>In article <84733377...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
><hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>
>> Alright!!! I've made it onto a killfile!! Yay!
>>
>> -- Hardwire
>
>And this shows quite nicely the maturity level we're dealing with here.
No. It is just Giwer, or a Giwerish ally, who is engaging in Giwer's
stated objective of posting irritating twaddle to keep us all busy.
Hardwire is simply playing at posting at a low maturity level.
It SHOULD be killfiled as this hardwire character is saying nothing to
move holocaust discussion forward and is intentionally being
disruptive.
Kurt Stele
Hardwire <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>> Posted and e-mailed to Mr. Hardiwire, cc Mr. McFee.
>Also, I'd enjoy it immensely if you deemed it unnecessary to email me
>any posts you make replies to here on this newsgroup. I can read them
>quite nicely through my newsreader, I do not want, nor do I need, carbon
>copies in my mailbox. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
I know: why do they send out e-mail? Like one wants to hear personally from the
Nizkooks?
Kurt Stele
"We don't believe in multinational states," said Israeli Labor Health Minister, Ephraim
Sneh. "It didn't work in Yugoslavia, and history is full of horrifying examples of what
happens in multinational states. Separation is the only way to build a reasonable
co-existence here."
(Canada's Maclean's magazine for June 10, 1996.)
Yet Jews and the Jewish media are in the forefront of multiracialism in White lands, a
movement which is destroying the White race. Evidently, Jews want Whites to suffer racial
destruction, but not themselves. A very typical Jewish hypocrisy, and a deliberate act of
anti-White hatred.
Keith Morrison
Gord McFee wrote:
> :>: Everyone in this goddamned conference is a liar!
> :>
> :>Wait a sec--isn't this sentence a logical contradiction?
>
> Hell, hardwire is a logical contradiction.
I object to the use of "logical" as an adjective referring to
the subject "hardwire".
--
Keith Morrison
lone...@nbnet.nb.ca
http://www.dmmw.com/lonewolf/keithm.html
Michael P. Stein
In article <327d30de...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>rcgr...@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:
>> will turn up content far more
>>objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
>>you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
>>quick succession for doing so.
>
>I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
>complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
>If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
>written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
>Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
>him.
Perhaps you will someday present evidence that this is how ISPs
operate rather than just making it up as you go.
>The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
>people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
>because of all that he wrote.
It wasn't because of what he wrote. It was because of what he did.
He violated specific clauses in terms-of-service agreements.
>They would hardly present the "good"
>things that he wrote would they?
Perhaps you'd like to list one.
>>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
>
>"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
>specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness.
Come now, Fergus, you're brighter than that. "Content-neutral" means
that the standards do not depend on the meaning of what is posted, only
its form. Sending the same email ten thousand times, even if it is the
normally-welcome message "You have won a million dollars," is a violation
of a standard: don't send excessive duplicate messages. The standard is
content-neutral because its application in no way depends on how agreeable
or disagreeable the content of the message is.
>I can
>understand blandness in a group where old ladies discuss embroidery
>patterns. In a group such as this, the debates MUST lead to
>hot-blooded interchanges, name calling and general verbal abuse. I
>have seen far, far worse written by Nizcorites and their acolytes than
>anything written by Mr Giwer.
You must not have seen his attacks on Hilary Ostrov, then.
>So many accusations of masturbation,
>fornication, defecation, drunkenness, drug-taking, mental stability
>and penile size and general foul language aimed at some of those who,
>like me, are here seeking Truth.
>
>>This group was created for the express purpose of hosting Holocaust denial
>>and neo-Nazi activism in an appropriate forum.
>I have no knowledge of why the group was set up, but I have yet to see
>any "neo-Nazi activism". How is it defined, so that I can look out for
>it?. Saying that someone disagreed with what a Jew says is not good
>enough.
Well, probably the most obvious example was Milton Kleim, Jr. before
he renounced his previous positions. He explicitly called himself a
National Socialist. We get posts from a fellow connected with the
National Socialist White People's Party. (Look for a user id of 'nswpp.')
That's a good start for things to look out for.
>>The expression of such
>>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>>forgery,
>No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
>jokes.
Not quite all. I disagree with Rich Graves and agree with you that he
should be allowed to post under his "Thisis Aforgery" variants, and also
"Danny Li" and any other names which do not connect with real people.
Granted, unlike some other people using crippled software I have the
ability to killfile him regardless of name - though ironically I have not
killfiled him.
But occasionally he has posted with the unaltered name and email
address of other real people. I consider that over the line. While a
regular poster here would easily spot the spoof, remember always that new
people wander in all the time unaware of the history. There is a real
chance that someone might believe Gordon McFee was the true author of the
outrageous Giwer forgery in his name, and send him abusive email. I don't
think it has happened, but the potential is there. This is why I think it
is legitimate to ban posts under the name and/or email address of
identifiable other real people.
Note that when Marduk posted as Giwer, Rich Graves and I would post
followups to alert people to the fact that it was a Marduk forgery. I did
the same thing when Giwer posted under other people's names. I was quite
consistent in my treatment: I posted the alert but left the job of
complaining to the ISP up to the injured party. Marduk did apparently get
bounced from idirect.com - at least, he doesn't post from there anymore.
>>spamming,
> Means posting an IDENTICAL message to more than five groups.
Or posting it to the same group too many times in too short a time, so
that all the copies exist on the group simultaneously. (Reposting a
message after the previous copy expired is not spamming.)
>So I have been led to believe. I have no knowledge of him doing this.
Enter DejaNews and do a power search filtering on mgi...@combase.com.
Look for the set of words
entrusted emigration protectorate moravia
You can verify for yourself that he posted the Wannsee Protocol a dozen
times between 11th April and 19th April. That was his first spam. There
were others. He tripped the cancelbot on at least one occasion. The 'bot
doesn't care what you say - there is a mathematical algorithm for
computing spammishness. All it cares about is whether you said it too
many times in too short a period or in too many newsgroups. Exceed the
threshhold and a cancel message will be sent out. It's deliberately
formed in such a way that sysops can program around it, honoring cancels
from the posters while ignoring the robocancel.
>>and mail-bombing
>The one and only "mail bombing" seems to have been a reply to a
>request by someone.
What request? Matt made that claim but refused to post the request he
asserted he was answering.
And how was the 5MB response relevant to the request? If you cannot
establish the relevance, then it was a mailbomb.
>Again, only the parties involved know the truth of
>this matter, not you, not me.
No, Netcom has sendmail logs and can determine if the message in
question was indeed sent from their system by Matt Giwer. In any event,
Ken had requested no email from him. Sorry, your attempt to defend
Giwer's actions falls far short.
Posted/emailed. (News server at this site has been flaky lately.)
--
Mike Stein The above represents the Absolute Truth.
POB 10420 Therefore it cannot possibly be the official
Arlington, VA 22210 position of my employer.
Gord McFee
In message <84730844...@vertigo.combase.com> - Hardwire
<hard...@vertigo.combase.com>Wed, 06 Nov 1996 09:28:58 -0500 writes:
:>
:>Sara aka Perrrfect wrote:
:>
:>>
:>> Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
:>> answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
:>> speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
:>> with her uterus" stuff.
:>>
:>> It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
:>>
:>
:>Oh come on Sarah, why the desperate attempt at trying to turn his words
:>against him? Just come right out and call him an asshole and be done
:>with it. All this beating around the bush.. so scholarly, so reserved,
:>so idiotic.
I guess we should call you "little Matt", as opposed to your old man, "the
liar Giwer-troll"?
:>> > For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
:>> > what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
:>> > intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer.
:>>
:>> I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
:>> "reporting a forgery."
:>
:>I'm afraid that even in America what you wrote would be defamatory, even
:>whiny... really whiny.... for God's sake woman, stop fucking whining!
Ewww! Such strong language. I thought you said you were a civilized,
dispasionate, objective type, interested only in the truth. You're sounding
more like the Troll every post.
:>>
:>> > You did not "report a
:>> > forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
:>> > mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
:>> > judge by.
:>>
:>> Yes, you do, yet you continue to lie about them.
:>
:>Liar, liar, pants on fire..... geeeez. Where is an honest man?!!
:>Everyone in this goddamned conference is a liar!
Not everyone, but you seem to do well at it.
:>>
:>> > Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
:>> > was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
:>> > termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
:>> > point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
:>> > Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
:>> > priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net.
:>>
:>> 1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
:>> point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?
:>
:>In hopes it would make you happy, and get you to STOP WHINING.
No, because, like all the other ISPs, she recognized what an asshole he was.
BTW, why did _you_ bounce him? The Joos make you do it?
[rest deleted]
Gord McFee
In message <84730577...@vertigo.combase.com> - Hardwire
<hard...@vertigo.combase.com> writes:
:>
[Hardwire's whiney defense of his dad Mattie Giwer deleted]
:>The definition of forgery has been blatantly twisted by the parties in
:>question to infer that signing your name incorrectly on a post is a
:>breach of some national currency exchange laws.
I thought you were gone?
Your old man's an asshole. Live with it.
Gord McFee
In message <55qs50$b...@lendl.cc.emory.edu> - lib...@larry.cc.emory.edu
(william c anderson)6 Nov 1996 20:24:00 GMT writes:
:>
:>Hardwire (hard...@vertigo.combase.com) wrote:
:>
:>: Everyone in this goddamned conference is a liar!
:>
:>Wait a sec--isn't this sentence a logical contradiction?
Hell, hardwire is a logical contradiction.
--
Gord McFee
In message <84733396...@vertigo.combase.com> - Hardwire
<hard...@vertigo.combase.com>Wed, 06 Nov 1996 16:33:48 -0500 writes:
:>
:>Danny Mittleman wrote:
:>
:>> >Oh, but indeed, this post is a direct admission that his control over
:>> >this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
:>> >reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
:>> >rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
:>> >would set out to do.
:>> No he isn't. And even the white power rangers can see that. You have
:>> to be Giwer or someone directly connected with him because you are so
:>> far out on a limb in his defense. And he is so far gone no sane person
:>> would support his behavior.
:>
:>Gee, guess I'm just insaaaaaannneeeee... that's it..
:>Remember boys and girls, when someone's actions are in direct opposition
:>to your own, call them "insane".
:>
:>Bite me, pink-boy.
Mattie, if you are going to play with the big boys, you'd better smarten up.
You said you were here to get to the bottom of the truth about Giwer. That's
fine, except it wasn't true. No one accused you of supporting him. Nor did
Danny Mittelman. Your statement that you are insane is admission that you are
Giwer's bum boy. You admitted it yourself.
Whadda maroon!
Gord McFee
In message <84730364...@vertigo.combase.com> - Hardwire
<hard...@vertigo.combase.com>Wed, 06 Nov 1996 08:08:53 -0500 writes:
:>
:>Gord McFee wrote:
:>
:>> Mr. Giwer, on ISP number 3 (or is it 4?) continues his true "revisionist"
:>> approach, by lying about his own posts, and lying about his own stated
:>> intentions. He also, just in passing, erroneously implies that he has
:>> succeeded at something, whereas the world knows he has failed at everything he
:>> has tried.
:>>
:>> Mr. Giwer stated earlier that his intention was to make this newsgroup useless
:>> and that he would control it. As we have all noticed, as he is booted from
:>> ISP to ISP, he has failed--completely--on both counts. Now he is reduced to
:>> snivelling little whines under assumed, forged or both, names.
:>Oh, but indeed, this post is a direct admission that his control over
:>this newsgroup has not been broken. He's had you chasing your tails,
:>reposting, crossposting, replying, and otherwise wasting your time
:>rebuking him. He's beginning to accomplish that which he stated he
:>would set out to do.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Mattie, but he accomplished none of his goals, as
is evidenced by his reduction to pathetic forgery and inability and cowardice
to post as himself. The mighty debater is reduced to juvenile delinquent
hacker attempts, that fool no one. He has neither made the newsgroup useless,
nor has he controlled it. Hell, he can't even control himself.
Pathetic.
And now, the mighty warrior, having cut and run, has to have his battles
fought by others. If he wasn't such a vile bastard, it would be sad.
Gord McFee
In message <schwartz-ya023180...@news.infinet.com> -
schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) writes:
:>
:>In article <84733377...@vertigo.combase.com>, Hardwire
:><hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
:>
:>
:>> Alright!!! I've made it onto a killfile!! Yay!
:>>
:>> -- Hardwire
:>
:>And this shows quite nicely the maturity level we're dealing with here.
You're far too civilized, Sara. I had a perfect, sexist, juvenile, childish
putdown that I was just praying you would use. Oh, that's it. Unlike "Hard"
Wire, you're an adult. I get it.
Kevin Filan
Fergus McClelland (re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: FORGERY:
: "The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
: especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
: OED.
: Alow me to pursue this point.
: If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
: spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
: this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
: note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
: tender.
Meanings are fluid; why don't you go to the OED and look up the
definitions for "spam" and "flame?" Ms. Schwartz's usage of the word
would be recognized as correct by any system administrator I know.
Giwer altered his From: line so that it would appear he was
somebody else. This _is_ a forgery. It _is_ a fraudulent imitation of,
say, Danny Keren's postings or Ken McVay's postings. Your attempt to
obfuscate on this issue is pretty typical "denier" behavior.
(Are you related to Jeff "stumpy" Roberts, btw? He used to go on
and on about the definition for "deliberate plan of starvation.")
: So, you did NOT "report a forgery". You may have your own definition
: of forgery, but I can only go by the dictionary which substantially
: disagrees with you.
I can go by those who work as administrators for Internet Service
Providers. They agree with Ms. Schwartz. Of course, you know this -- but
you just want to continue the argument.
: This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you. However, it
: seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
: Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
: Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
: complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
: company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
: will reject him for a quiet life.
Ain't capitalism grand?
Why, may I ask, has no one raised any complaints about Kurt Stele
or Tom Moran, two posters who have posted anti-Semitic garbage every bit
as hateful as anything Giwer ever spewed up. Could it be that they're
abiding by "netiquette" (i.e. commonly accepted standards of behavior on
Usenet) and as a result, no one bothers them?
: If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
: information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
: However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
: information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
: that "he had been warned".
So take it up with Gate.net, then.
: Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
: They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
: If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
: priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
: would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
: private.
So take it up with Gate.net, then.
: According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
: knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
: whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
: money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
: again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
: getting close to violating..." only that "he had been warned." I
: reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
: stop your wild self-serving inventions.
Go ahead and start behaving like Mr. Giwer... and watch how long
you stay on Demon. Go ahead; flood the newsgroup with 100+ messages a day
with various forged "From:" lines.
Go ahead. I dare you.
Peace
Kevin Filan
Fergus McClelland
schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>In article <327fdff5...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
>
>> Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
>> misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not constitute forgery. It is not
>> your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
>> menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
>> harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
>> uterus rather than her brain.
>>
>
>Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
>answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
>speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
>with her uterus" stuff.
>
>It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
>
So, you do accept that I was not "forging" your name.
>
>> For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
>> what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
>> intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer.
>
>I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
>"reporting a forgery."
I repeat here from my last message a bit you removed:
FORGERY:
"The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
OED.
Alow me to pursue this point.
If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
tender.
So, you did NOT "report a forgery". You may have your own definition
of forgery, but I can only go by the dictionary which substantially
disagrees with you.
>> You did not "report a
>> forgery" you simply tried to make trouble for him. Don't be so mealy
>> mouthed - be honest about your libel. We do have your own words to
>> judge by.
>
>Yes, you do, yet you continue to lie about them.
Reading what you wrote - and quoting it - and giving an opinion does
not constitute a lie.
>
>> Your act was as unreasonable as your judgement was false. It
>> was not the act of someone concerned, it was the act of a vicious
>> termigent, whose cause of action has no foundation in reality. I would
>> point out that you had no specified permission to publish Miss Teresa
>> Israels' response to you, which was private e-mail, and contained
>> priviledged information about Mr Giwer's account at Gate net.
>
>1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
>point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?
This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you. However, it
seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
will reject him for a quiet life.
>2. E-mail from system administartors is NOT, IMO, private.
You should consider whether your opinion defines facts. It is this
Prefect attitude that you are always in the right. Well, Madam, I say
that you are wrong.
If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
that "he had been warned".
Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
private.
>3. There was absolutely no "priviledged" information in Ms. Israels' letter
>to me. Another lie.
I disagree, see above, therefore not a lie. By the way, do you have
another definition of lie of which I am not aware? You seem to bandy
the word about so promiscuously and in all the wrong places so as to
destroy its true meaning. Very confusing.
>> I think
>> that this is probably quite serious for someone who is a "Netizen"
>> like yourself. Madam, are you not concerned at your own behaviour - to
>> whom will you report yourself?
>
>My ISP is quite familiar with me and the actions I have taken. *I* informed
>them myself. And unlike Mr. Giwer, I have had the same ISP for 3 years.
I wonder how long you would last if many people ganged up on you?
There are many things that you have said in this group which could be
used against you - review your previous postings carefully and you
will see what I mean. I don't think that you would like me to repeat
them here en bloc.
>
>> To everyone else in the world you may be called Perrrrrrrrrrrrfect.
>> But to me, you will always be "Prefect".
>
>Yes, back to the name-calling. When in doubt, revert to that, eh?
Well not really, I was only saying how I think of you. If your name
was Monica, I would think of you as Monica The Monitor.
>>
>> > and yes, I do. But they taught us in 3rd grade
>> >here in America that freedom doesn't come without responsibility for ones'
>> >actions. Don't they teach you that in England anymore? Or did you go to an
>> >anarchist school?
>> They never did teach such things in England, probably because it is
>> instinctive. Nor do we put hand on heart and swear allegiance to a
>> flag, (though the armed forces swear allegiance to the Crown of
>> course).
>
>Well that makes sense. Since you never learned about personal
>responsibility for the consequences of your actions, I suppose you can be
>forgiven for defending Mr. Giwer.
>
>Might I suggest a remedial course?
I'm sorry Monica, I should have expounded. We were taught in such a
way as to be imbued with a sense of fair play and tolerance. There was
an old English expression, "Playing with a straight bat", which
encompassed the ideal.
>[snip]
>
>
>> Why should they care a damn - as long as he pays his bill? It would
>> only be repeated aggravation by you and others would make them do
>> anything. It would be to get rid of you and your whining that they
>> would do anything, not because of him. After all, how would they know
>> what he was doing without you yelping round their ankles.
>>
>
>Why should they care? Ask them! There *is* something called a user's
>agreement, and Mr. Giwer was clearly getting close to violating it. THAT'S
>WHY HE WAS WARNED.
According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
getting close to violating..." only that "he had been warned." I
reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
stop your wild self-serving inventions.
>
>> Not "again", as I have disproved the "first" there cannot be an
>> "again". However, you did NOT "forward all his forgeries" to his ISP,
>> you wrote a nasty letter with a sample.
>
>How do you know I didn't forward all his forgeries? In fact, I did. And I
>will continue to do so, when he forges the names of others. That is MY
>RIGHT, Mr. McClelland.
Refer to the OED definition listed above, not your whim as to what the
word should mean. As he has not forged, you can not have forwarded his
forgeries to Gate Net. I might be prepared to accept that you had
forwarded messages that you did not like to his ISP, but forgeries
they were not.
>> I didn't call you names, merely told you my visceral response to you.
>> Please read more carefully in future.
>
>"Miss Prefect" certainly sounds like name-calling to me.
Merely a response to how you were behaving.
>"a screeching, haggard old harriden" sounds like name-calling to me.
>"a decayed strumpet" sounds like name-calling to me.
>"a pubescent girl thinking with her uterus rather than her brain" sounds
>like name-calling to me.
Again I have to refer to the comments of Hardwire. He noticed, as you
did not, because he reads more carefully than you, that I said that
you "put me in mind of" these types. You still do. Your words dictate
my impression of you dear heart - what else have I got to go on?
>> >What do the Ebo and Tutsis have to do with Mr. Giwer forging headers?
>>
>> Nothing
>>
>> >You really amaze me, Mr. McClelland. Since there is no defense for Mr.
>Giwer's
>> >action, you drag African tribes into the discussion.
>> No. The tribes are related to your actions. Read again. It is an
>> analogy.
>>
>
>Hmmm. They have nothing to do with it, then they are "related to your actions."
No, they have nothing to do with MR GIWER'S actions. They have to do
with YOUR actions, (and people like you), your general demeanour as
revealed so succinctly by your hysterical, vituperative vendetta
against Mr Giwer and your wild oubursts against me when your actions
are questioned. There are groups of people in this world who are not
liked. The reason they are not liked is often because they are
unpleasant. You, are being unpleasant.
>
>[snip]
>
>> >Thanks for the acknowledgement. Now, when you post Mr. Giwer's lies, which
>> >name will he use? And will you allow him to post as "Ken McVay" or "Yale
>> >Edeiken"?
>> In those circumstances I would have no say in the matter. Mr Giwer
>> would say his own things. It would not be for me, as a relay, to say
>> anything. Nor would I think it morally correct.
>>
>Then you have completely validated my point. Thank you, Mr. McClelland.
I have validated nothing - I would merely be a conduit for free
speech. And of course, a conduit does not edit - otherwise, the speech
would not be free.
Fergus McClelland
Dene Bebbington
>>whatever he's calling himself today) writes:
>>
>>To familiarize yourself with Mr. Giwer again, you can refer to
>>
>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>> http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse
>
>No point, I can see no harm done by him. Maybe it is British culture
>that enables us to tolerate such trivial matters as you and others are
>being so hysterical about.
You do not speak for all people in Britain.
>>But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
>>abusive and dishonest.
>Of course it is not. It is so blatant, and he must SURELY know it,
>that it cannot be either. A minor form of ragging I grant you, but
>nothing more. You are once again being hysterical. He uses his OWN sig
>file at the end of the message. He writes in his normal manner. The
>headers are jokes, misspelled. Only a true idiot could believe either
>that it is a real attempt to forge or that it is abusive. Calm down,
>the man identified himself clearly.
He was only identified by those aware of him and his silly tactics. When
he masquerades as other posts (such as Ken McVay) then this is
unacceptable, and whilst regulars may be wise to his antics, many other
readers of this newsgroup may not.
>> will turn up content far more
>>objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
>>you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
>>quick succession for doing so.
>
>I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
>complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
>If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
>written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
>Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
>him. The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
>people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
>because of all that he wrote. They would hardly present the "good"
Hardly one sided since they (and I include myself in this) simply used
Giwer's own posts, that is his own words, when complaining about him.
That is hardly biased evidence.
>>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
>
>"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
>specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness. I can
>understand blandness in a group where old ladies discuss embroidery
>patterns.
I think that Rich is referring to Netiquette here, his behaviour in
general (for example, forging) rather than the specific content of his
posts.
>>The expression of such
>>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>>forgery,
>No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
>jokes.
Not true.
>>He's more than welcome to post through c2.net, too, provided that he
>>agrees to abide by content-neutral standards of netiquette. He is
>>certainly not required to post under his own name, but a stable pseudonym,
>>or an identifiable range of pseudonyms (as used by Dr. Dmitri Vulis),
>>seems a reasonable thing to ask.
>It all amounts to the same thing, whatever he calls himself is
>irrelevant, the words he utters will be the same.
Only as long as he isn't pretending to be other posters.
--
Dene Bebbington
"... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
Brian Harmon
In article <55tmhf$3...@is05.micron.net>,
Kurt Stele <kurt...@micron.net> wrote:
>Hardwire <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>
>>> Posted and e-mailed to Mr. Hardiwire, cc Mr. McFee.
>
>>Also, I'd enjoy it immensely if you deemed it unnecessary to email me
>>any posts you make replies to here on this newsgroup. I can read them
>>quite nicely through my newsreader, I do not want, nor do I need, carbon
>>copies in my mailbox. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
>
>I know: why do they send out e-mail? Like one wants to hear personally from the
>Nizkooks?
>
>Kurt Stele
News Readers can often be flakey things, Kurt. They
simply lose messages, or the Newsfeed may be very slow
from one system to the next.
Sending the person you reply to a copy makes sure
they saw it. That way they can't lie and claim they
never got your reply.
Brian Harmon <bra...@itsa.ucsf.edu>
------
Human memory is the glue that bonds the massive
physical evidence into a coherent and unified history.
<mbas...@lehman.com>
Dene Bebbington
Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>>who notify others of law-breakers?
>I do not think so, but, as you well know, there are many that do.
>
>> Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
>>sheet is showing.
>I don't know what you mean, In England we sleep on sheets, please
>elucidate.
Are you just ignorant of the reference Sara makes, or is this a pathetic
attempt at humour? Maybe your hopelessness has something to do with that
school you attended which you keep harping on about.
Kimberley Ahlf
Followup-To: soc.culture.jewish,alt.revisionism
Fergus McClelland (re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: FORGERY:
: "The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
: especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
: OED.
: Alow me to pursue this point.
: If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
: spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
: this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
: note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
: tender.
It's good that you bring up legal tender to illustrate the concept of
forgery, although you're talking about a different topic - defacing.
(Defacing is an entirely acceptable practice on Usenet. In fact, Giwer
defaces threads every time he adds his comments to them.)
A while ago an artist decided that paper currency would be a
unique subject for his skills. He started making renderings of bills,
including US currency, using colored pencils and hard-stock paper. He
signed his artwork, sold it and even bartered with it, always
representing it as his original art. It was obvious to anyone who saw the
work that it was not the real thing. The Secret Service put a stop to his
illegal artwork fast. He almost went to jail.
If someone makes a crude B&W photocopy of a dollar bill they are breaking
the law.
The crudeness or non-criminal intent of forgeries is no legal defense for
someone who copies money. Nor is it a defense for someone who posts
unethical forgeries on the net.
If Giwer had stopped posting his forgeries after their victims had
complained, then perhaps Giwer could be excused for exhibiting bad taste,
as he often has been. But Giwer continued posting them long after he had
been made aware that his forgeries were unwelcome, and in fact the only
thing that stopped his forgeries was his ISP's eviction of him.
If you're still not convinced that what Giwer did was unethical, then
perhaps you should take a $20 bill to Kinko's and put your defense to a
legal test. Tell the clerk there that you're going to copy it - just for
a joke - and see what she says.
-ODB
Rich Graves
>Distribution: X-no-archive: yes
Fergus, I believe this needs to be a separate header; adding it to
Distribution" won't keep it out of all the crawlers. You can also make
"X-No-Archive: yes" the first line of the body of your message. Hope this
helps.
Thank you for not crossposting to fl.general and soc.culture.jewish.
mst...@access5.digex.net (Michael P. Stein) writes:
>In article <327d30de...@news.demon.co.uk>,
>Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>>>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
>>
>>"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
>>specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness.
>
> Come now, Fergus, you're brighter than that.
I'm not so sure. In his defense, It's mostly an American concept. I trust
he will welcome this learning opportunity.
>"Content-neutral" means
>that the standards do not depend on the meaning of what is posted, only
>its form. Sending the same email ten thousand times, even if it is the
>normally-welcome message "You have won a million dollars," is a violation
>of a standard: don't send excessive duplicate messages. The standard is
>content-neutral because its application in no way depends on how agreeable
>or disagreeable the content of the message is.
[Nod]
>>>The expression of such
>>>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>>>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>>>forgery,
>>No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
>>jokes.
>
> Not quite all. I disagree with Rich Graves and agree with you that he
>should be allowed to post under his "Thisis Aforgery" variants, and also
>"Danny Li" and any other names which do not connect with real people.
Actully, you're not disagreeing with me, not really. He's welcome to post
pseudonymously; indeed, he might be doing so now. He's welcome to post
under multiple pseudonyms; Brian Smith does, and nobody has characterized
it as abuse (supidity, yes, but not abuse -- the response is to
embarrass him, not to say he has no right to make a fool of himself).
Where I think Giwer stepped over the line was in changing his "pseudonym"
at a rapid rate in an express attempt to annoy people. I don't call that
"forgery"; by that I meant only the actual limp impersonations.
> Posted/emailed. (News server at this site has been flaky lately.)
FYI, that's true everywhere, due to attacks on the news.* hierarchy by the
Kook Cabal.
-rich
Fergus McClelland
schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>In article <327fdff5...@news.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
>(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
>
>
>> Now really Miss Schwartz, changing your self-anointed title of
>> misspelt "Perfect" to prefect does not constitute forgery. It is not
>> your name, it is not your message, it is not your e-mail address. Your
>> menopausal outbursts put me in mind of a screeching, haggard old
>> harriden, a decayed strumpet, or a pubescent girl thinking with her
>> uterus rather than her brain.
>>
>
>Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
>answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
>speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
>with her uterus" stuff.
>
>It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
>
So, you do accept that I was not "forging" your name.
>
>> For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
>> what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
>> intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer.
>
>I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
>"reporting a forgery."
I repeat here from my last message a bit you removed:
FORGERY:
"The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
OED.
Alow me to pursue this point.
If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
tender.
Fergus McClelland
Posted through two servers as one not reliable at present - being
updated and posting may get lost. Apologies if duplicated.
Gord McFee
In message <55tmhf$3...@is05.micron.net> - kurt...@micron.net (Kurt Stele)
writes:
:>
:>Hardwire <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
:>
:>>> Posted and e-mailed to Mr. Hardiwire, cc Mr. McFee.
:>
:>>Also, I'd enjoy it immensely if you deemed it unnecessary to email me
:>>any posts you make replies to here on this newsgroup. I can read them
:>>quite nicely through my newsreader, I do not want, nor do I need, carbon
:>>copies in my mailbox. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
:>
:>I know: why do they send out e-mail? Like one wants to hear personally from the
:>Nizkooks?
E-mail is a means of communication outside the bounds of Usenet News posting.
With newservers as flakey as they are sometimes, many people appreciate
receiving courtesy e-mail copies of posts to ensure they know the post was
made. Most deniers like you do not appreciate receiving a courtesy copy,
because that forces them to actually read the post instead of just spewing.
Not e-mailed to Mr. Smith and Mr. Stele (which only would have required one
e-mail in any event).
Dene Bebbington
Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>>> For goodness sake woman, pull yourself together! Firstly, you wrote
>>> what in Britain would be considered a defamatory letter with the
>>> intention of making trouble for Mr Giwer.
>>
>>I don't live in Britain, Mr. McClelland. I wrote what is America is called
>>"reporting a forgery."
>I repeat here from my last message a bit you removed:
>FORGERY:
>"The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
>especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
> OED.
The fact that Giwer's forgeries were found out doesn't lessen the fact
that they were forgeries. I would say that Giwer pretending to be Nizkor
or Ken McVay can be classed as "fraudulent imitation of something".
>Alow me to pursue this point.
>If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
>spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
>this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
>note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
>tender.
>So, you did NOT "report a forgery". You may have your own definition
>of forgery, but I can only go by the dictionary which substantially
>disagrees with you.
But if you were to photocopy a dollar bill and attempt to pass it off in
a transaction then that is forgery. This is akin to what Giwer has done,
his forgeries have been spotted, but his intention was quite clear.
>>Well that makes sense. Since you never learned about personal
>>responsibility for the consequences of your actions, I suppose you can be
>>forgiven for defending Mr. Giwer.
>>
>>Might I suggest a remedial course?
>
>I'm sorry Monica, I should have expounded. We were taught in such a
>way as to be imbued with a sense of fair play and tolerance. There was
>an old English expression, "Playing with a straight bat", which
>encompassed the ideal.
>
Hmmmm, interesting that you do not berate Mr Giwer for not "playing with
a straight bat", I wonder why you are so silent on that. Yes, that Giwer
who has also tried to pass himself off as "The Prime Holohugger", "Danny
Li", and "Ken McVay". Obviously Giwer was unaware, or unmindful, of any
such ideal as encompassed by the saying you quoted.
[rest snipped]
John Morris
In <84758795...@perdrix.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
[snip]
>You clot.
> A meaning is a meaning - by sheer definition of the word meaning.
"Dogs must be carried on the escalator."
--
John Morris <jmo...@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca>
at University of Alberta <Scripture veteris capiunt exempla futuri>
--
Fergus McClelland
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>>>Are you implying that gassing is an appropriate method to deal with people
>>>who notify others of law-breakers?
>>I do not think so, but, as you well know, there are many that do.
>>
>>> Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
>>>sheet is showing.
>>I don't know what you mean, In England we sleep on sheets, please
>>elucidate.
>
>Are you just ignorant of the reference Sara makes, or is this a pathetic
>attempt at humour? Maybe your hopelessness has something to do with that
>school you attended which you keep harping on about.
Miss Schwartz does not state what she means in a way that I can know
for certain. She may be referring to a flag of truce. She may be
referring to a surrender. I do not know. I submit that neither do you
for certain. At the Balcombe Street siege the IRA hung a white sheet
out of the window when they heard that the SAS were on the way.
Go into your supermarket or a pub' and say to someone that their
"white sheet is showing." I think a common response would be: "What?
What are you going on about?" In a heated argument it may be assumed
that you are inferring cowardice. At which point you may be punched.
Not an attempt at humour, a request for accuracy. Let Miss Schwartz
answer for herself, or not, that is her prerogative.
"Alles was ist endet..."
Fergus McClelland
Fergus McClelland
Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Edited slightly, please see original.
>>rcgr...@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:
>>To familiarize yourself with Mr. Giwer again, you can refer to
>>>
>>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>>> http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse
Me:
>>No point, I can see no harm done by him. Maybe it is British culture
>>that enables us to tolerate such trivial matters as you and others are
>>being so hysterical about.
Dene Bebbington:
>You do not speak for all people in Britain.
No sir, neither do you, nor did I claim to. What a fatuous remark.
However, I do gather from your comment that either you are not
British, though you are in Britain, that you do not associate yourself
with British culture, or that you do not have the British qualities
that I mentioned.
>>>But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
>>>abusive and dishonest.
>>Of course it is not. It is so blatant, and he must SURELY know it,
>>that it cannot be either. A minor form of ragging I grant you, but
>>nothing more. You are once again being hysterical. He uses his OWN sig
>>file at the end of the message. He writes in his normal manner. The
>>headers are jokes, misspelled. Only a true idiot could believe either
>>that it is a real attempt to forge or that it is abusive. Calm down,
>>the man identified himself clearly.
Dene Bebbington
>He was only identified by those aware of him and his silly tactics. When
>he masquerades as other posts (such as Ken McVay) then this is
>unacceptable, and whilst regulars may be wise to his antics, many other
>readers of this newsgroup may not.
This is always the case with newcomers to any group, or, indeed,
newcomers to any walk of life. Newcomers are at a disadvantage
anywhere, it takes but a while for anyone very interested to get to
know. And if they are not very interested they will drift away. Either
way, no harm done.
>>> will turn up content far more
>>>objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
>>>you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
>>>quick succession for doing so.
>>
>>I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
>>complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
>>If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
>>written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
>>Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
>>him. The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
>>people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
>>because of all that he wrote. They would hardly present the "good"
Dene Bebbington
>Hardly one sided since they (and I include myself in this) simply used
>Giwer's own posts, that is his own words, when complaining about him.
>That is hardly biased evidence.
Of course it is. You try that in a court of law, presenting only some
of the documents from a bundle and not allowing the jury to see the
rest - see what happens.
You are one of those mentally puny people who cannot even manage to
fight an argument on the internet without running to complain when you
don't get your own way. You must consider yourself a nothing and a
nobody to have to resort to such measures. I pity anyone with such a
lack of self-conviction, such a knowledge of their own incapacity that
they need to act this way. Can't you even have an argument or two on
the internet without crying and slinking off to whimper your
complaints to somebody bigger than you to do your fighting for you? At
least Mr Giwer has guts - something you obviously lack.
>
>>>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>>>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
>>
>>"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
>>specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness. I can
>>understand blandness in a group where old ladies discuss embroidery
>>patterns.
Dene Bebbington
>I think that Rich is referring to Netiquette here, his behaviour in
>general (for example, forging) rather than the specific content of his
>posts.
You think, but you don't know. Allow Mr Graves to answer points put to
him if you please. Your thoughts of what he means are of no value.
With regard to "Netiquette" please see my reply to Kevin Filan where I
cover that point.
>>>The expression of such
>>>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>>>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>>>forgery,
>>No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
>>jokes.
Dene Bebbington
>Not true.
Facts are not determined by whether or not you say "Not true." I
suggest that you read "The Green Book", "The White Book" and
"Archbold" before you pontificate so foolishly. These will give you
some idea of County and Supreme Court Practice in this country and how
it defines concepts such as "forgery".
>>>He's more than welcome to post through c2.net, too, provided that he
>>>agrees to abide by content-neutral standards of netiquette. He is
>>>certainly not required to post under his own name, but a stable pseudonym,
>>>or an identifiable range of pseudonyms (as used by Dr. Dmitri Vulis),
>>>seems a reasonable thing to ask.
>>It all amounts to the same thing, whatever he calls himself is
>>irrelevant, the words he utters will be the same.
Dene Bebbington
>Only as long as he isn't pretending to be other posters.
This declaimed by the oaf who says that he is not quite decided as to
whether or not people who say they disbelieve in "The Holocaust [TM]"
should be put in gaol. Earlier, you accused me of trying to speak for
the British as a whole, (I think), and here you are stating what
people will be allowed to do on the worldwide Internet. If he expertly
pretended to be other posters - faking his headers and path - how
would you know? Anyway, will you enforce this ban yourself? Will you
go to Mr Giwer and others and personally confront them? I think I will
answer this for you. No you will not. You will go to the big boys and
get them to do your dirty work for you. That is the way of all
cowards.
"alles was ist endet..."
Fergus McClelland
>Dene Bebbington
Sara aka Perrrfect
In article <3283539...@pubnews.demon.co.uk>, re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk
(Fergus McClelland) wrote:
> schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>
> >Of course, Mr. McClelland. When you are unable to produce a reasonable
> >answer, or back up your statements with any facts, attack. And when
> >speaking to a woman, be sure to throw in all that "menopause" and "thinking
> >with her uterus" stuff.
> >
> >It speaks volumes about you, mr. McClelland.
> >
> So, you do accept that I was not "forging" your name.
NO. Nor do I have the vaguest idea where you got that idea. Since you
obviously need small words for your reading comprehension, let me try
again:
Lady makes sense.
Man cannot repond in smart way.
Man makes fun of lady.
Man looks like fool.
Got it now?
> I repeat here from my last message a bit you removed:
> FORGERY:
> "The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
> especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
> OED.
Exactly.
You've admitted to Mr. Giwer's forgeries, thanks to the OED.
Mr. Giwer forged the names of other people on his posts here. He made a
fraudulent imitation of something, and falsified documents.
Thanks for the clarification.
> If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
> spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
> this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
> note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
> tender.
Analogy doesn't hold water, but thanks for trying.
The proper analogy would be for Mr. Giwer to manufacture his OWN dollar
bills, since what he did was to create posts and sign the names of OTHER
people to them.
[snip]
> Reading what you wrote - and quoting it - and giving an opinion does
> not constitute a lie.
Making a false claim is the same thing as lying, I believe.
> >1. If my cause for action had no foundation in reality, why did Ms. Israels
> >point out that Mr.Giwer had ALREADY BEEN WARNED about his behavior?!?
>
> This I do not know, and, I would submit, neither do you. However, it
> seems to contradict the treatment received from Gate Net by Kevin
> Filan when he attempted to make trouble in the same way that you did.
> Perhaps Mr Giwer "had been warned" because the company had received
> complaints and did not want any more. As Hardwire aptly pointed out, a
> company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
> will reject him for a quiet life.
>
"This you DO know," since Ms. Israels said it was so. Are you know calling
HER a liar as well?
Mr. "Hardwire" may have "pointed something out," but that doesn't make it
so. MY ISP goes to great lengths to make sure their customers are happy,
even customers like me who risk mail bombs by being honest.
> >2. E-mail from system administartors is NOT, IMO, private.
> You should consider whether your opinion defines facts. It is this
> Prefect attitude that you are always in the right. Well, Madam, I say
> that you are wrong.
> If the message you received from Miss Israels had not contained
> information which was not public, then I would agree with you.
> However, you were told, wrongly in my opinion, a piece of private
> information. It was internal Gate Net customer information, namely
> that "he had been warned".
Please translate this into English so I can respond to it.
> Imagine that I write to your ISP, saying that you dishonour cheques.
> They reply to me that they have "warned" you about this already.
> If I posted said correspondence, you would consider it a breach of
> priviledge, or at least an intrusion into your private affairs. You
> would not be pleased that I had posted t - you would consider it
> private.
No.
[snip]
> >My ISP is quite familiar with me and the actions I have taken. *I* informed
> >them myself. And unlike Mr. Giwer, I have had the same ISP for 3 years.
> I wonder how long you would last if many people ganged up on you?
> There are many things that you have said in this group which could be
> used against you - review your previous postings carefully and you
> will see what I mean. I don't think that you would like me to repeat
> them here en bloc.
> >
My ISP would stick by me. Period.
> Well not really, I was only saying how I think of you. If your name
> was Monica, I would think of you as Monica The Monitor.
And you don't think this shows a rather high level of immaturity?
>
[snip]
> I'm sorry Monica, I should have expounded. We were taught in such a
> way as to be imbued with a sense of fair play and tolerance. There was
> an old English expression, "Playing with a straight bat", which
> encompassed the ideal.
>
But obviously you did NOT learn about personal responsiblity.
> >Why should they care? Ask them! There *is* something called a user's
> >agreement, and Mr. Giwer was clearly getting close to violating it. THAT'S
> >WHY HE WAS WARNED.
>
> According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
> knowledge.
Well... that about says it all. If Mr. Hardwire is your "superior
knowledge," then there isn't much more to say, since Mr. Hardwire is
astonishingly ignorant.
[snip]
> >Then you have completely validated my point. Thank you, Mr. McClelland.
>
> I have validated nothing - I would merely be a conduit for free
> speech. And of course, a conduit does not edit - otherwise, the speech
> would not be free.
>
So you also think it's okay to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater?
Yale F. Edeiken
> re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
> No sir, neither do you, nor did I claim to. What a fatuous remark.
> However, I do gather from your comment that either you are not
> British, though you are in Britain, that you do not associate yourself
> with British culture, or that you do not have the British qualities
> that I mentioned.
If British "culture" includes lying, extortion, harassment, forgery, and
invasion of privacy as acceptable behavior, than I have another reason to be
thankful for the American Revolution.
> You are one of those mentally puny people who cannot even manage to
> fight an argument on the internet without running to complain when you
> don't get your own way.
Fergus tells us: "How dare you complain to the police just becasue this
fine person broke into your house and ransacked it."
>You must consider yourself a nothing and a
> nobody to have to resort to such measures.
I consider myself the victim of a crime. I was.
> I pity anyone with such a
> lack of self-conviction, such a knowledge of their own incapacity that
> they need to act this way. Can't you even have an argument or two on
> the internet without crying and slinking off to whimper your
> complaints to somebody bigger than you to do your fighting for you?
Fergus tells us: "If you were a real man you would have gone out and
hunted down the man who burglarized your house rather than complaining to the
police."
> At
> least Mr Giwer has guts - something you obviously lack.
The criminal Giwer had the backbone of a jellyfish. If your view of life
is that his activities showed "courage" I suggest you read a bit of Houseman.
The sickness *is* in your soul.
--YFE
Dene Bebbington
Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>raks...@panix.com (Kevin Filan) wrote:
>
>>Fergus McClelland (re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>>
>>: FORGERY:
>>: "The making of a thing in fraudulent imitation of something;
>>: especially, the forging, counterfeiting, or falsifying of a document"
>>: OED.
>>: If you were to take one of your dollar notes and draw a moustache and
>>: spectacles on George Washington and even sign it "Sara the Prefect"
>>: this would not constitute forgery. You would of course be defacing the
>>: note but I am sure that, even in America, it would still be legal
>>: tender.
>>
>> Meanings are fluid; why don't you go to the OED and look up the
>>definitions for "spam" and "flame?" Ms. Schwartz's usage of the word
>>would be recognized as correct by any system administrator I know.
>
> A meaning is a meaning - by sheer definition of the word meaning.
>know the American internet slang meaning for flame and spam. But so
>what? I am talking about the specific meaning of forgery and it cannot
>be loosely applied. Interpreting words to suit yourself is dangerous.
>A policeman could come up to you in the street and tell you that
>something you had done was forgery and therefore arrests you. You
>would then want him to use the dictionary meaning of the word and
>apply it exactly. I am not talking about slang words - ask a lawyer
>the meaning of "Forgery", he will know precisely the meaning of the
>word. As far as I am concerned, if she said forgery I will take it
>that she meant forgery, no vague usage applied after the event.
This is the most pathetic evaasion I've seen on here for ages. Does the
OED state how good the forgery has to be in order to be called a
forgery? The fact that Giwer's forgeries were detected by those aware of
his methods, and who know about news headers, makes it no less a
"fraudulent imitation of something".
If you were to try and counterfeit a currency note and pass it off in a
transaction, it would still be considered a forgery, even if it was a
bad one.
[drivel snipped]
--
Bob Whitaker
Dene Bebbington wrote:
>
> Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
> >>who notify others of law-breakers?
> >I do not think so, but, as you well know, there are many that do.
> >
> >> Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
> >>sheet is showing.
> >I don't know what you mean, In England we sleep on sheets, please
> >elucidate.
>
> Are you just ignorant of the reference Sara makes, or is this a pathetic
> attempt at humour? Maybe your hopelessness has something to do with that
> school you attended which you keep harping on about.
>
> Dene Bebbington
>
> "... after all, who'd notice another madman around here?!"
The sheets reference accuses you of being a member of the Ku Klux
Klan, which is another version of their accusing you of being A Nazi Who
Wants To Kill Six Million Jews. It's a standard Politically Correct
clone statement they use against pretty well everybody.
acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
Could it be that the holohoaxers and their communist fellowtravellers just
do not want the world to know the TRUTH about the group known for eons as
the Christkillers?
That the JEWS were responsible for the murder of Christ is well
documented.They even forced the Romans to help.
That the JEWs were responsible for all the genocides, such as of the
Ukraine, while they ran communism is well documented.
That the JEWISH STERN GANG irresponsibly murdered British and civilians in
Palestine is well documented. The Stern Gang, while in Germany, even
offered to ally themselves with Hitler, as documented!!!
The Zionists continue to murder, even killing UN troops at the Qana
refugee camp.
Why is it that the JEWS do not want the world to know, and to consider
their deeds?
People such as Giwer, Huber, and Ernst Zundel are to be complimented for
providing the truth to those who will listen and read.
Mark Van Alstine
In article
<Pine.A41.3.95.961111...@fn2.freenet.edmonton.ab.ca>,
<acu...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
[drivel snipped]
Yet another loon goes into my killfile.
Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes
not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties--but
right through every human heart--and all human hearts."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn, "The Gulag Archipelago"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dene Bebbington
Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>schw...@infinet.com (Sara aka Perrrfect) wrote:
>>>>Are you implying that gassing is an appropriate method to deal with people
>>>>who notify others of law-breakers?
>>>I do not think so, but, as you well know, there are many that do.
>>>
>>>> Careful, Mr. McClelland, your white
>>>>sheet is showing.
>>>I don't know what you mean, In England we sleep on sheets, please
>>>elucidate.
>>
>>Are you just ignorant of the reference Sara makes, or is this a pathetic
>>attempt at humour? Maybe your hopelessness has something to do with that
>>school you attended which you keep harping on about.
>
>for certain. She may be referring to a flag of truce. She may be
>referring to a surrender.
Or she may be referring to the KKK...
Dene Bebbington
Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>rcgr...@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:
>
>>>To familiarize yourself with Mr. Giwer again, you can refer to
>>>>
>>>> http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/g/giwer-matt/
>>>> http://ftp.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi?people/g/giwer.matt/net-abuse
>Me:
>>>No point, I can see no harm done by him. Maybe it is British culture
>>>that enables us to tolerate such trivial matters as you and others are
>>>being so hysterical about.
>Dene Bebbington:
>>You do not speak for all people in Britain.
>
By mentioning British culture and using phrases such as "enables us ..."
suggests that you were trying to speak for all British people. I pointed
out that you do not.
>However, I do gather from your comment that either you are not
>British, though you are in Britain, that you do not associate yourself
>with British culture, or that you do not have the British qualities
>that I mentioned.
You may gather what you like, I just happen to disagree with you on the
issue regarding Giwer. And anyway, who are you to pontificate on such
British qualities as though all British people must take exactly the
same line on an issue - this is ridiculous and absurd.
>
>>>>But changing the From: line on his newsreader every ten posts or so is
>>>>abusive and dishonest.
>
>>>Of course it is not. It is so blatant, and he must SURELY know it,
>>>that it cannot be either. A minor form of ragging I grant you, but
>>>nothing more. You are once again being hysterical. He uses his OWN sig
>>>file at the end of the message. He writes in his normal manner. The
>>>headers are jokes, misspelled. Only a true idiot could believe either
>>>that it is a real attempt to forge or that it is abusive. Calm down,
>>>the man identified himself clearly.
>Dene Bebbington
>>He was only identified by those aware of him and his silly tactics. When
>>he masquerades as other posts (such as Ken McVay) then this is
>>unacceptable, and whilst regulars may be wise to his antics, many other
>>readers of this newsgroup may not.
>
>This is always the case with newcomers to any group, or, indeed,
>newcomers to any walk of life. Newcomers are at a disadvantage
>anywhere, it takes but a while for anyone very interested to get to
>know. And if they are not very interested they will drift away. Either
>way, no harm done.
On a newsgroup such as this where the historical truth of an important
issue is being discussed people such as Giwer playing silly buggers with
his posts may well do some harm if it gives others a false impression.
>
>>>> will turn up content far more
>>>>objectionable than most of the inane Giwer forgeries. Some of it came from
>>>>you. But no one, save Mr. Giwer, has ever been kicked off three ISPs in
>>>>quick succession for doing so.
>>>
>>>I think that you are twisting the facts to win this joust. If people
>>>complain to an ISP the company will look at the person complained of.
>>>If no-one complains, the ISP will not be aware of what is being
>>>written. Therefore, it is safe to say that people complained about Mr
>>>Giwer to his ISP's and the companies, not wanting trouble, got rid of
>>>him. The number, 2,3, or 20 is immaterial. He was cut off because
>>>people complained, giving one-sided "evidence" against him, not
>>>because of all that he wrote. They would hardly present the "good"
>
>Dene Bebbington
>>Hardly one sided since they (and I include myself in this) simply used
>>Giwer's own posts, that is his own words, when complaining about him.
>>That is hardly biased evidence.
>
>Of course it is. You try that in a court of law, presenting only some
>of the documents from a bundle and not allowing the jury to see the
>rest - see what happens.
When it comes to proof of his forging it is hardly necessary to present
all "documents". If I was being tried for passing off counterfeit money,
would the prosecution need to present all money notes I'd ever used - of
course not. The only "documents" necessary here are the ones that show
Giwer's antics for what they are.
>You are one of those mentally puny people who cannot even manage to
>fight an argument on the internet without running to complain when you
>don't get your own way.
I'm quite prepared to engage Giwer and anybody else in argument, and
have done so. But I'm not prepared to let them get away unchallenged
with imitating other posters.
> You must consider yourself a nothing and a
>nobody to have to resort to such measures. I pity anyone with such a
>lack of self-conviction, such a knowledge of their own incapacity that
>they need to act this way. Can't you even have an argument or two on
>the internet without crying and slinking off to whimper your
>complaints to somebody bigger than you to do your fighting for you? At
>least Mr Giwer has guts - something you obviously lack.
Mr Giwer has no guts at all. He is an absurd, hateful, incoherent little
man.
>>
>>>>That is because only Mr. Giwer consistently
>>>>violates *content-neutral* standards of acceptable behavior.
>>>
>>>"Content neutral". What an absurd concept. Unless this means something
>>>specific to Americans, I can only take it to mean blandness. I can
>>>understand blandness in a group where old ladies discuss embroidery
>>>patterns.
>
>Dene Bebbington
>>I think that Rich is referring to Netiquette here, his behaviour in
>>general (for example, forging) rather than the specific content of his
>>posts.
>
>You think, but you don't know. Allow Mr Graves to answer points put to
>him if you please. Your thoughts of what he means are of no value.
>With regard to "Netiquette" please see my reply to Kevin Filan where I
>cover that point.
Maybe I'm not quite as intellectually puny as you.
>
>>>>The expression of such
>>>>"opinions" has never been a problem, and it is quite disingenuous of Mr.
>>>>Giwer and friends to argue that the reason his net-abusing antics of
>>>>forgery,
>>>No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
>>>jokes.
>Dene Bebbington
>>Not true.
>
>Facts are not determined by whether or not you say "Not true." I
>suggest that you read "The Green Book", "The White Book" and
>"Archbold" before you pontificate so foolishly. These will give you
>some idea of County and Supreme Court Practice in this country and how
>it defines concepts such as "forgery".
Of course my bald conclusion was no less valid than yours. And I have on
my side the knowledge of statements that Giwer has made in the past
regarding his intentions regarding this newsgroup - take a look at the
Nizkor site of you wish to find out more about this silly man.
>
>>>>He's more than welcome to post through c2.net, too, provided that he
>>>>agrees to abide by content-neutral standards of netiquette. He is
>>>>certainly not required to post under his own name, but a stable pseudonym,
>>>>or an identifiable range of pseudonyms (as used by Dr. Dmitri Vulis),
>>>>seems a reasonable thing to ask.
>>>It all amounts to the same thing, whatever he calls himself is
>>>irrelevant, the words he utters will be the same.
>
>Dene Bebbington
>>Only as long as he isn't pretending to be other posters.
>
>This declaimed by the oaf who says that he is not quite decided as to
>whether or not people who say they disbelieve in "The Holocaust [TM]"
>should be put in gaol.
What has this got to do with Giwer's forgeries. Fond of digressions are
you?
> Earlier, you accused me of trying to speak for
>the British as a whole, (I think), and here you are stating what
>people will be allowed to do on the worldwide Internet.
No, I just believe that masquerading as other posters is unacceptable
behaviour, if Giwer's ISP considers criticisms of his behaviour to be
valid then its his tough luck.
> If he expertly
>pretended to be other posters - faking his headers and path - how
>would you know?
I might not, although it's not particularly difficult to detect his
style once you've been around here for awhile. The question is fairly
hypothetical anyway since Giwer doesn't appear to have the knowledge to
forge his posts to that extent.
> Anyway, will you enforce this ban yourself?
There is no ban being discussed, all we wish is for Giwer to behave in a
less deceitful manner.
> Will you
>go to Mr Giwer and others and personally confront them? I think I will
>answer this for you. No you will not. You will go to the big boys and
>get them to do your dirty work for you. That is the way of all
>cowards.
You'd know all about cowards, since you defend a drunken idiot who tries
to pass himself off as other people. Obviously that school you speak so
much of didn't teach you much in terms of acceptable behaviour regarding
how you treat others.
Dene Bebbington
"Yale F. Edeiken" <ya...@enter.net> wrote:
>> re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk (Fergus McClelland) writes:
>
>> No sir, neither do you, nor did I claim to. What a fatuous remark.
>> However, I do gather from your comment that either you are not
>> British, though you are in Britain, that you do not associate yourself
>> with British culture, or that you do not have the British qualities
>> that I mentioned.
>
>invasion of privacy as acceptable behavior, than I have another reason to be
>thankful for the American Revolution.
Hey, hang on a minute, not all British take the same view as Fergus -
thankfully!
>> You are one of those mentally puny people who cannot even manage to
>> fight an argument on the internet without running to complain when you
>> don't get your own way.
>
> Fergus tells us: "How dare you complain to the police just becasue this
>fine person broke into your house and ransacked it."
Well quite, that would be like going to the teacher and crying "please
sir, look what he did", at least that appears to be how Fergus thinks.
--
Chuck Ferree
Chuck Ferree wrote:
Dene, obviously you're a "cherry" around here. Giwer, is everything
his critics say he is and more. Mainly for me he has been a pain in
the ass.
Best,
Chuck
Dene Bebbington wrote:
>
> Fergus McClelland <re...@perdrix.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >Dene Bebbington <de...@bebbo.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >Edited slightly, please see original.
> >>>rcgr...@ix.netcom.com (Rich Graves) wrote:
clipped because it's a silly argument in my opinion
Chuck
Hardwire
That's it... perform the ever (un)successful
"Sidestep-while-insulting-indirectly" approach. You amuse me.
Hardwire
Danny Mittleman wrote:
> No. It is just Giwer, or a Giwerish ally, who is engaging in Giwer's
> stated objective of posting irritating twaddle to keep us all busy.
> Hardwire is simply playing at posting at a low maturity level.
>
> It SHOULD be killfiled as this hardwire character is saying nothing to
> move holocaust discussion forward and is intentionally being
> disruptive.
>
> daniel david mittleman
>
Here! Here!
Well said... of course, nothing posted here really ever DOES move
"holocaust discussion" forward, now does it? (Rhetorical question,
answering it will prove you enjoy talking to yourself.)
So why interject commentary on content now?
Hardwire
Kurt Stele wrote:
>
> Hardwire <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>
> >> Posted and e-mailed to Mr. Hardiwire, cc Mr. McFee.
>
> >Also, I'd enjoy it immensely if you deemed it unnecessary to email me
> >any posts you make replies to here on this newsgroup. I can read them
> >quite nicely through my newsreader, I do not want, nor do I need, carbon
> >copies in my mailbox. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
>
> I know: why do they send out e-mail? Like one wants to hear personally from the
> Nizkooks?
>
>
I'm not sure Kurt.... I think it goes along with some sort of
"IN-YOUR-FACE" tactic whereby we are forced to either (1) Get a
mail-handler (procmail for us Unix users) or (2) Delete all their CC's
by hand.
It seems like some sort of insecure antic whereby they aren't confident
enough that we'll actually pay attention to their pathetic replies and
therefore have to use every means possible to ensure the proper
sympathetic response.
Should I play the tiny violin for them or would you like to Kurt?
Hardwire
> >Hardwire <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Posted and e-mailed to Mr. Hardiwire, cc Mr. McFee.
> >
> >>Also, I'd enjoy it immensely if you deemed it unnecessary to email me
> >>any posts you make replies to here on this newsgroup. I can read them
> >>quite nicely through my newsreader, I do not want, nor do I need, carbon
> >>copies in my mailbox. Thank you and have a nice day! :)
> >
> >I know: why do they send out e-mail? Like one wants to hear personally from the
> >Nizkooks?
> >
> >Kurt Stele
>
> simply lose messages, or the Newsfeed may be very slow
> from one system to the next.
>
> Sending the person you reply to a copy makes sure
> they saw it. That way they can't lie and claim they
> never got your reply.
>
By now I would have thought that any such attempts at denial would meet
with the deafening screeching about WWW.DEJANEWS.COM, so why send CC's
even AFTER you've been told that they are not welcome?
I for one don't care whether or not you reply. If it were a REAL
conversation I might shed a tear at not hearing from all of you folks,
but it's simply a ruse, no real content what-so-ever.
I think my previous statement holds true, it's simply a concerted
effort to make yourself seen, whether the other person wants to hear
you, or not. A really pathetic cry for attention.
Hardwire
Gord McFee wrote:
> Giwer's bum boy. You admitted it yourself.
When you get the intelligence necessary to recognize sarcasm please, do
let us know.
>
> Whadda maroon!
> ||||||||||
> vvvvvvvvvv
> Gord McFee
> I'll write no line before its time
The above should read:
"I'll make no sense until the end of time."
Hardwire
Gord McFee wrote:
> I thought you were gone?
>
> Your old man's an asshole. Live with it.
>
The day you get a clue is the day I leave this newsgroup alone. From
here it looks as if that could be a very distant day indeed.
Hardwire
Sara aka Perrrfect wrote:
> > According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
> > knowledge.
>
> Well... that about says it all. If Mr. Hardwire is your "superior
> knowledge," then there isn't much more to say, since Mr. Hardwire is
> astonishingly ignorant.
>
Come now Sara... I thought we could be friends... and now this.
I'm hurt (feigning sorrow).
Hardwire
Kevin Filan wrote:
> say, Danny Keren's postings or Ken McVay's postings. Your attempt to
> obfuscate on this issue is pretty typical "denier" behavior.
>
I like the way you point it out as "typical" behavior. Even though the
good sir to whom you are responding isn't involved in your petty
holocaust discussion whatsoever. You've got holocaust on the brain
don't you? Seek help.
>
> I can go by those who work as administrators for Internet Service
> Providers. They agree with Ms. Schwartz. Of course, you know this -- but
> you just want to continue the argument.
Funny, I work for a world class ISP (to hereafter remain anonymous) and
I seem to remember the part in the contract that states that the user
can be dumped for ANY objectionable material posted using the service.
Which gives open license to any ISP to cancel a user's account for any
reason they feel appropriate whilst hiding under that very clause.
> : company does not want trouble over one 20 dollar a month customer, so
> : will reject him for a quiet life.
>
> Ain't capitalism grand?
>
First you dismiss it, then you support it... Which side of the goddamned
issue are you on anyways??
> Why, may I ask, has no one raised any complaints about Kurt Stele
> or Tom Moran, two posters who have posted anti-Semitic garbage every bit
> as hateful as anything Giwer ever spewed up. Could it be that they're
> abiding by "netiquette" (i.e. commonly accepted standards of behavior on
> Usenet) and as a result, no one bothers them?
>
Or could it be that certain people have forged a deadly alliance against
Mr. Giwer in particular, simply for sport if nothing else.... hmmm.. you
be the judge gentle lurkers.
> : According to Hardwire, this was not so - I bow to his superior
> : knowledge. You must argue this point with him. I have no agreement
> : whatsoever with my provider, and it is a very large one. They take the
> : money and I use the service. However, you are indulging in speculation
> : again, and are deeming it fact. You were NOT told "he was clearly
> : getting close to violating..." only that "he had been warned." I
> : reiterate, you were only told that he had been warned, not WHY. Please
> : stop your wild self-serving inventions.
>
> Go ahead and start behaving like Mr. Giwer... and watch how long
> you stay on Demon. Go ahead; flood the newsgroup with 100+ messages a day
> with various forged "From:" lines.
>
> Go ahead. I dare you.
>
Go ahead, post something that makes a shred of sense you spineless twit,
go ahead.
Go ahead. I dare you.
Hardwire
Dene Bebbington wrote:
> He was only identified by those aware of him and his silly tactics. When
> he masquerades as other posts (such as Ken McVay) then this is
> unacceptable, and whilst regulars may be wise to his antics, many other
> readers of this newsgroup may not.
>
He was identified because he clearly intended the posts to be seen as a
joke and a slur on the people posting to this newsgroup. First and
foremost the tip-off was that he included his OWN signature file with
the posts. He wasn't attempting to post forgeries, he was attempting to
be satirical... or course the effect was totally lost on the malcontent
hunchbrains in this forum.
> >No forgeries attempted - see above. The "forgeries" were blatant
> >jokes.
>
> Not true.
>
Very true... you people just don't want to let it go at that, needing
some sort of evidence to support your total innocence in all of this.
Hardwire
Dene Bebbington wrote:
> >Miss Schwartz does not state what she means in a way that I can know
> >for certain. She may be referring to a flag of truce. She may be
> >referring to a surrender.
>
> Or she may be referring to the KKK...
>
Now that's an interesting point, considering that I wouldn't expect
someone of British origin and who is currently residing in Britain to
understand a concept that is purely American in origin. If you fall on
your face as well as your arguements do you must be one UGLY
son-of-a-bitch.
Gregory Taylor
Hardwire <hard...@vertigo.combase.com> wrote:
>You know, if Giwer Jr. should ever post to this newsgroup, I'd like to
>see your face when you realize what an ass you've made of yourself all
>this time calling me Giwer's son.... it's going to be classic.
Perhaps we might be using the term "son" as it appears in "Son of the
Soil" or "Son of the Pioneers." I'd be inclined to say you fit that
particular lineage quite well.
--
The arts are the field on which we place our own dreams, thoughts, and desires
alongside those of others, so that solitudes can meet, to their joy sometimes,
or to their surprise, and sometimes to their disgust.(R. Hughes) Gregory Taylor
WORT-FM 89.9 Madison, Wisconsin http://www.msn.fullfeed.com/~gtaylor/RTQE.html