I have decided to ban Tim Gratz from this Forum. He joined the Forum on 9th November, 2004 and over the last 16 months has made 4,703 posts. It soon became apparent that he had extreme right-wing opinions. I particularly found his attempts to justify any action as long as it was part of the war against communism, fairly nauseating. This included the use of death squads in Latin America, the overthrow of democratic regimes by the CIA, the McCarthy blacklists and the defence of any form of government corruption as long as it involved members of the Republican Party. Although I found these views very unpleasant , I rejected calls from some members to ban him from the Forum.

This was mainly because I am a firm believer in free speech. As Rosa Luxemburg once pointed out: “Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently.” I also share the view of John Milton "Truth is not established by prohibitions and punishments, but in a free and open encounter with falsehood." I also thought Tim’s debates with Robert Charles-Dunne, Pat Speer, Mark Stapleton were highly educational. I also thought his ridiculous posts, as long as they were challenged, did considerable harm to the right-wing cause. Although I grew increasingly concerned about of time members of the Forum spent answering his bizarre posts. It did also seem that he was making a concerted effort to side-track certain subjects. Sometimes it seemed every thread was turned into “Castro killed JFK”.

However, the real problem with Tim Gratz concerned his attempts to stop other people from posting comments on the Forum. While researching Arthur Bremer’s attempted assassination of George Wallace, I discovered that Richard E. Sprague had claimed in The Taking of America that:

At the time he was shot, he (George Wallace) was drawing 18% of the vote according to the polls, and most of that was in Nixon territory. The conservative states such as Indiana were going for Wallace. He was eating into Nixon's southern strength. In April the polls showed McGovern pulling a 41%, Nixon 41% and Wallace 18%. It was going to be too close for comfort, and it might be thrown into the House - in which case Nixon would surely lose. There was the option available of eliminating George McGovern, but then the Democrats might come up with Hubert Humphrey or someone else even more dangerous than McGovern. Nixon's best chance was a head-on contest with McGovern. Wallace had to go…

Arthur Bremer was selected. The first contacts were made by people who knew both Bremer and Segretti in Milwaukee. They were members of a leftist organization planted there as provocateurs by the intelligence forces within the Power Control Group. One of them was a man named Dennis Cossini…

What evidence is there that Bremer's attempt on Wallace was a directed attempt by a conspiratorial group? Bremer himself has told his brother that others were involved and that he was paid by them. Researcher William Turner has turned up evidence in Milwaukee and surrounding towns in Wisconsin that Bremer received money from a group associated with Dennis Cassini, Donald Segretti and J. Timothy Gratz.

I also discovered that a J. Timothy Gratz was approached by Donald Segretti to take part in the 1972 Vixon dirty tricks campaign. According to the Senate Investigation into Watergate, Gratz informed the White House about Segretti’s approach and as a result Nixon sent Tony Ulasewicz to meet him. We now know that Ulasewicz was part of Operation Sandwedge. This was the dirty tricks campaign that was attempting to stop George Wallace, Edward Kennedy and Edmund Muskie from standing in the 1972 presidential election. We also know that Ulasewicz was at Chappaquiddick at the time Mary Jo Kopechne died. (Ulsaewicz claimed he had been asked by Nixon to investigate Kopechne’s death).

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4017

I posted what I found about J. Timothy Gratz on the Forum. He admitted he was the J. Timothy Gratz mentioned in the Senate Watergate Report but denied he was part of Nixon’s dirty tricks campaign. Tim tried to get me to remove this information from the Forum. Even though he threatened me with legal action I refused.

I suspected that his involvement in these dirty tricks resulted in him being debarred as a lawyer. However, he has always refused to answer why he was removed from the legal profession.

Later, another member, Shanet Clark, repeated Richard E. Sprague’s claims about Gratz. As a result Gratz threatened Shanet with legal action. Shanet believed him and after making an unnecessary apology, left the Forum. I was appalled by this action and told Gratz that if he did this again I would remove him from the Forum. I was also disturbed when I discovered that two members of the Forum had received telephone calls from Gratz. One of these members, an elderly, well-respected investigative reporter and the author of numerous books, was disturbed enough by this phone call to say he would no longer post on the Forum.

This issue is an important one. The main purpose of setting up the “Controversial Issues in History” section was to investigate examples of government corruption and cover-ups. This has been highly successful as it has encouraged several witnesses to come forward to provide information on these cases. It has enabled researchers, journalists and historians to share their information on these cases. As a result the Forum is used as a source of information by both journalists and authors.

However, using a Forum for this kind of work does bring risks. Several people have threatened to sue us over postings that have been made on the Forum. It is a common tactic used by people with money to keep people from publishing details about their wrongdoings. Even if they are guilty of the offences that they have been accused of, they know that the threat of legal action will persuade some people to withdraw their comments and to cease investigating them.

In recently weeks I have become involved in a dispute with Tim Gratz over the CIA organized overthrow of the democratically elected government in Guatemala in 1954. Tim posted untrue information based on the CIA black propaganda campaign carried out at the time of the military coup. This issue is not in dispute as these CIA documents were released on the orders of Bill Clinton in 1997. When I accused him of spreading false information he threatened me with legal action. This included the following message: “I offer you one last opportunity to apologize for your statements that I have lied and posted information I knew to be false. I guess the best time to serve the summons on you is when you attend the seminar in Dallas next November. I can wait that long. So you need necessarily worry about litigation until that time. It is my understanding that once US jurisdiction is acquired you as a party can be required to give deposition testimony in the district in which the suit is filed.”

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5945

One of the things that I have learnt as a teacher and a parent, is that if you must always carry out your threats. I have therefore banned Tim Gratz from the Forum. I am sorry if I have upset members and non-members of your enjoyment but I am sure you will find Tim posting his nonsense of some other Forum.

Is there not some discrepancy here?

Having little interest in the internal disputes of conspiracy theorists, I don't really care which it is, but I couldn't help noticing the apparent difference... How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

His membership hasn't been deleted but his posting rights have been rescinded - hope that's clear enough for you.

These postings shows the owners of the Education Forum power. Should the owners have these possibilities ... to decide who could contribute and who should not be allowed to contribute??

Personally, I think that this is a complicated question. I would like all the participants at this forum to a bit of soul searching!

Is this decision RIGHT? Can I ( can you) support these kinds of decision now and also in the future? How far are such kinds of decision hampering the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression?

What is my personal believe?

I have been observing a practice of not “just” handling of postings expressing different (sometimes unexpected) views. Views probably disliked by owners of this site. This made me observant and discomfortable.

My own conclusion of what I have experienced up till today is that this is not an independent and true searching Forum…. Which of course force me to be not as creative and intellectually searching for answers as I hoped that I could be when accepting the membership.

I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about Dalibor. No doubt you will have plenty of time over the next four days to explain your concerns to my face.

My sainted aunt, what a sorry whinge, just how long do you think someone of my political beliefs (socialist) would last on a right wing forum? About two posts, if I was lucky, Just because we are more tolerant of free speech than you neo-cons doesnt mean there arent limits..BTW, I think you will find that the ED Forum excepted you as a member, not the other way round...