John Simkin Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 While it may be true that Mr. Gray's postings on this forum have no value, literary or otherwise, it is grossly unfair, IMHO, to accuse him of stimulating sexual desire. With your daft jokes you are beginning to sound like Tim Gratz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 While it may be true that Mr. Gray's postings on this forum have no value, literary or otherwise, it is grossly unfair, IMHO, to accuse him of stimulating sexual desire. With your daft jokes you are beginning to sound like Tim Gratz. And I'm very disappointed, too. I was hoping the "porn star" smear might stick, at least a little. Ashton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 (edited) While it may be true that Mr. Gray's postings on this forum have no value, literary or otherwise, it is grossly unfair, IMHO, to accuse him of stimulating sexual desire. With your daft jokes you are beginning to sound like Tim Gratz. Funnily enough, I recall many complaints about good ole boy Tim Gratz, but I don't remember anyone complaining about his best feature, which was his sense of humor. But it is a pity that the moderator can take time out to chastize me for my humorous tone, while remaining silent about the venomous tone that Ashton Gray has been using for a number of weeks back in some of his postings (some are more venemous than others) addressed to Douglas Caddy. Edited July 9, 2006 by J. Raymond Carroll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 [quote name='John Simkin' date='Jul 9 2006, 05:38 PM' post='67734'] While it may be true that Mr. Gray's postings on this forum have no value, literary or otherwise, it is grossly unfair, IMHO, to accuse him of stimulating sexual desire. With your daft jokes you are beginning to sound like Tim Gratz. While Tim Gratz and I had many differences they were all political in nature. (he loves W; I can't stand him). On matters of a higher importance we were in agreement. And in spite of all his innane "Castro- did it" nonsence -(which I never once believed HE actually believed)- he was good hearted, ultimately. In his own peculiar way. That is til he threatened to sue the moderator, for which he was banned. I once thought that Raymond Carroll meant well too but I have seen differently. He's is neither funny, nor is he kind. But I am breaking my own self-imposed "peace maker" rule here. So I am going to bow out of this discussion and ignore the tag- team of Ray and Pat. Frankly, I do hope Mr Caddy answers the questions he's been asked, the ones that don't violate attorney client privilege, which is of course, sacrosanct. I am very interested in what he has to say. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 Forum members and readers of this thread are invited to contrast what Ashton Gray has written about the first break-in at Watergate and the document below from Wikipedia. Hey, Doug: I have a great idea! Since you've admitted now that you in fact have read my articles about the CIA hoax of a "first break-in," and since you're a lawyer and I'm not, how about you come and join me in that thread that has the article you've read: There was no "first break-in" at the Watergate Now that we all know that you have read it, you'll know that I said the following at the end of that message: If you do just that minimal homework, and still would like to return here and attempt to make the case that there was a "first break-in"—as all of us were duped into believing three decades ago and have accepted as an article of faith ever since—I will be more than happy to debate and discuss any evidence you're able to scrape up in support of a "Watergate First Break-in."Personally, I'd rather have the Augean stables to shovel out. Now I ask you: who better in the entire world to pick up that gauntlet than you? Hell, you represented most of the cruds who claimed to have been in Washington, D.C. over Memorial Day weekend breaking into the Watergate (when they weren't), so you not only have done the "minimal homework," you're probably the world's greatest expert! In fact, you're probably the only one in the world who might have even a ghost of a chance. So come on, Doug: just you and me, keyboard to keyboard. Come on into that thread with me, and you make your case for the Phabulous Phantasy Phirst Break-In! Think of the victory you can have over your Moriarity! I've just finished incinerating Pat Speer's "case" for the Phabulous Phantasy "Diem Cables" that never existed. He's over there by himself talking to the ghosts of Nixon and his press secretary right now trying to figure out where they went. I didn't even work up a sweat on that one. So come on, Doug. Now's your big moment. Now you can "slap me down big time." You can dance away in total victory, having proven that there really, really was a "first break-in." Think of the glory! So what are you waiting for? Make your case. I'll type with one hand tied behind my back. And I'm not even a lawyer—just a wannabe writer. How can you possibly lose, Doug? It's a sure thing. Right? Doug? Shall we dance? Let's tango. I'm calling you out. Ashton Gray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. Raymond Carroll Posted July 9, 2006 Share Posted July 9, 2006 [quote name='Ashton Gray' post='65480' date='Jun 15 2006, 03:31 AM' ]If you do just that minimal homework, and still would like to return here and attempt to make the case that there was a "first break-in"—as all of us were duped into believing three decades ago and have accepted as an article of faith ever since—I will be more than happy to debate and discuss any evidence you're able to scrape up in support of a "Watergate First Break-in." I'm calling you out. Ashton Gray please explain to us why it should make the slightest difference to Mr. Caddy in his professional capacity whether there were one, two or even fifty break-ins. He has no current client to represent. What do you expect him top do about it now, supposing you convince him there was no first break- in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 While it may be true that Mr. Gray's postings on this forum have no value, literary or otherwise, it is grossly unfair, IMHO, to accuse him of stimulating sexual desire. With your daft jokes you are beginning to sound like Tim Gratz. And I'm very disappointed, too. I was hoping the "porn star" smear might stick, at least a little. Ashton Tim's jokes: Daft si, deft no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John Gillespie Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 (edited) Dawn, Hello from Boston...just back from vacation up the Maine Coast. It was wonderful ! I quite agree with your assessment, especially now that I have dug out from under these interminable postings about Ash's individual suitability as a member. I see nary a posting that engages Ash, Caddy, Baldwin or any one of the three on the substance of these matters. Let me point out to those reading this that we may be witnessing history in the making and I am hardly kidding. But the debate has degenerated to whether Ash has been "vituperative and..." whatever. The 'Agenda' thing - so pathetic and transparent - has taken hold so tenaciously that even to suggest there is more to Watergate than the cashiering of Nixon is somehow to state or imply that the Tricky One somehow was worthy of support. "Nixon worshipper' is one unforgettable phrase I have seen here. How insightful! Makes one wonder why so many postings are made daily that signify nothing. It can make for an easy comparison - at least at times - between the look & feel of this place and American television. You go, Ash. John Gillespie Edited July 10, 2006 by John Gillespie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Speer Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Dawn, Hello from Boston...just back from vacation up the Maine Coast. It was wonderful ! I quite agree with your assessment, especially now that I have dug out from under these interminable postings about Ash's individual suitability as a member. I see nary a posting that engages Ash, Caddy, Baldwin or any one of the three on the substance of these matters. Let me point out to those reading this that we may be witnessing history in the making and I am hardly kidding. But the debate has degenerated to whether Ash has been "vituperative and..." whatever. The 'Agenda' thing - so pathetic and transparent - has taken hold so tenaciously that even to suggest there is more to Watergate than the cashiering of Nixon is somehow to state or imply that the Tricky One somehow was worthy of support. "Nixon worshipper' is one unforgettable phrase I have seen here. How insightful! Makes one wonder why so many postings are made daily that signify nothing. It can make for an easy comparison - at least at times - between the look & feel of this place and American television. You go, Ash. John Gillespie It is indeed hypocritical to assert that anyone's calling Gray a Nixon defender or Nixon worshipper is off-target, but his calling anyone who disagrees with him a CIA-conspirator or CIA-apologist on target. We are discussing the historical record here. Some of us simply understand that the mountain of evidence supports that the Watergate break-in was performed by Nixon's people doing Nixon's bidding. Others are under the impression that when two people tell slightly different accounts of an historical event years later then that means the CIA is reponsible. This is the height of lunacy, IMO. My Mom thought I was born on a Friday when the calender shows I was born on a Thursday. Must be the CIA... Maybe I wasn't born at all... As far as my overall attitude to the CIA, I consider myself very critical of the CIA. I don't discount the CIA's involvement in Watergate. It is not unreasonable to assume that the CIA was involved in McCord's decision to come forward. It is not unreasonable to assume that the CIA fed people like Woodward information to make sure the truth got out on Nixon. One might even go so far as to theorize that McCord deliberately got caught. But to hold that every event from the release of the Pentagon Papers to Nixon's appointment of Ford as Vice-president was a CIA-orchestrated plot is completely without merit and evidence of someone with no real grasp of history. Such "wouldn't it be interesting" thoughts are best recorded in screenplays and fail to stand up under the heat of extensive examination. Who was "the CIA" and what were their motives? Were they against the war or for the war, and why would did they feel Ford would make a difference? And why did they do nothing to help Ford get re-elected? My concern is that, by focusing on these theoretical crimes, we can learn nothing about the real crimes and the real abuses of power under the Nixon regime. We can't apply what we learned from Watergate to today's headlines. We can't say that Bush is becoming another Nixon because, well, maybe Nixon wasn't even a Nixon... I asked Mr. Gray if he believed Nixon committed any impeachable offenses--he refused to answer. I asked Mr. Gray if he saw parallels between what he believes to have been an unlawful removal of a President during wartime to the Plame scandal currently plaguing Bush. Once again, no answer. Mr. Gray...is there anything to be learned from the Watergate scandal? Is there one morsel of information that can be useful to understanding what goes on today? Is the CIA still calling the shots? If not, when did it stop calling the shots, and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashton Gray Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Hello from Boston...just back from vacation up the Maine Coast. It was wonderful ! Hey John! 'Bout time! Damn! Here I am juggling lion cubs, and you're off touring Maine? The 'Agenda' thing - so pathetic and transparent - ...Makes one wonder why so many postings are made daily that signify nothing. Enh. It's just the gathering of the Nazguls. They got nothing, so they post nothing. They just take up as much space as they possibly can ranting and raving about it. Same old snake oil pitch we've been hearing for 34 years. Hasn't changed a whiff. Good to have you back! Ashton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted July 11, 2006 Share Posted July 11, 2006 Hello from Boston...just back from vacation up the Maine Coast. It was wonderful ! Hey John! 'Bout time! Damn! Here I am juggling lion cubs, and you're off touring Maine? The 'Agenda' thing - so pathetic and transparent - ...Makes one wonder why so many postings are made daily that signify nothing. Enh. It's just the gathering of the Nazguls. They got nothing, so they post nothing. They just take up as much space as they possibly can ranting and raving about it. Same old snake oil pitch we've been hearing for 34 years. Hasn't changed a whiff. Good to have you back! Ashton John, Yes, great to have you back. Having just read Pat's post above ....I hardly know what to say. He just totally contradicted himself in the first sentence. I don't even read his rants anymore. His logic is on Mars. But what can one expect from someone who professes to believe the likes of Liddy, McCord etc.? Geez I never believe my own clients until I have corroborated what I am told in several other ways...so why would I believe a convicted felon whom I have never met? Oh well, some folks are just skilled in the art of naivete, a skill I do not possess Glad you had a wonderful vacation. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now