Tim Gratz and the Plot to Kill Wallace

[Tim Gratz]

John, excuse me, but when I joined the only real topic was "JFK Assassination Debate." Perhaps you had all along intended to expand it but if you look at the biographies of many new members they express an interest in the debate on the JFK assassination.

Obviously the topics occasionally touch on party politics, but I suspect a close examination will disclose that if anything many of my posts were responding defensively to things you or others had written.

It is I who wrote a fairly extensive post many months ago to the effect that partisan politics has no place in the investigation of a murder.

It says nothing about the merits of either party whether, for instance, LBJ, Fidel Castro or Lauri Schmidt, a Republican YAF member did it.

If LBJ did it, that does not indict the entire Democrat Party. Nor does it indict the Republican Party or YAF if Schmidt did it. And it is not a partisan issue if Castro did it.

And you have not answered my question why it is that I am willing to explore all reasonable conspiracy theories, even if they involve conspiracies from "the right", e.g. (presumably) rogue CIA agents, or Schmidt; while very few of the left-wingers on the Forum are willing to attempt a serious evaluation of any conspiracy that did not originate from parties that can be considered more conservative than JFK. As a case in point, you continuously blast the "Fidel scenario" as ridiculous even though it has been considered persuasive from several people whose intelligence, I suspect, is equal to yours. And despite my continuous prodding, you have yet to state that the theory that Sam Papich was a conspirator is ridiculous. (And let me add that I have no idea what the politics of Papich were.)

Of course it is your Forum and I have never objected to the inclusion of the other matters you suggest. And some of your postings on some of these issues I find to be most insightful, while others I find to be of little persuasive value and "far out in left field" (no pun intended). But I do think that the primary interest of most people who join the JFK portion of the Forum is to try to discover who killed JFK. And sometimes the Forum tends to go down paths that have little or anything to do with the Kennedy case but merely consume gobs of members time.

And I am disappointed that you call me "arrogant" and "ridiculous" when I have always tried to show respect for you, even when I disagree greatly with many of your opinions. Do you have friends of different poltical persuasions? As I have said before, from high school on I have had good friends who were far to the left of me--because I respect their intelligence and their point of view. I think that respect for the opinions of others, and treating them courteously, is an important part of social discourse.

[Mark Knight]

...I have had good friends who were far to the left of me--because I respect their intelligence and their point of view. I think that respect for the opinions of others, and treating them courteously, is an important part of social discourse.

Questioning the intelligence of nearly everyone who disagrees with you shows a VERY APPARENT lack of respect for "their intelligence and their point of view." But maybe the definition of "respect" is different in your neck of the woods. If I had "respected" my parents the same way you "respect" the intelligence and the point of view of those who disagree with you, I'd have been what is now referred to as a victim of child abuse...and deservedly so, I might add.

I can cite far too many instances which prove the lie in your statement I've quoted above, Tim...a few of which were directed toward me. Would you like me to search the forum and post all of them...or just the most recent examples?

[Mark Knight]

ONE...

Today, 05:22 AM Post #22

I just love people who call names. They are usually of the highest intelligence, I have found.

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, ever heard of the statement: "To get respect you have to show respect".

How true it is.

Many people (not just me) question the intelligence of persons who engage in puerile name-calling. Just tonight Mark Stapleton called me several names.

I can assure you that the left-wing friends that I had respected my intelligence and opinions just as I did theirs. And my point is that left-wingers can and should respect the opinions of intelligent people of the right (and vice versa).

I am not perfect and I think I have occasionally even apologized for a remark that I realized in retrospect was insensitive. But I think if you really do your search you will find that if I did question someone's intelligence it was because that person had called me names or said insulting things to me.

[Mark Knight]

...TWO...

I hate to make sweeping generalizations judging people's intelligence but writing off the kooks on either fringe, I wonder if the young people on both the far right and the far left were "deeper thinkers" than people who subscribed to "middle-of-the-road" politics?

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, what is wrong with that remark? It was not directed toward any individual. Although all generalizations are false, the point I was attempting to make was that the deeper thinkers may tend to gravitate to the extreme left or right in politics. That was a compliment to left-wingers as opposed to moderates.

My generalization might be right or wrong but I hardly consider it offensive and I do not understand why you do.

Edited July 20, 2005 by Tim Gratz

[Mark Knight]

...THREE...

Now I hate to say this but I sometimes judge a person's intelligence by their ability to discern an obvious joke.

[John Simkin]

As you know I think it is possible that you were involved in Operation Sandwedge. I have therefore been doing some research into your background. Could you confirm that you are John Timothy Gratz who in 1976:

Lived at 4508 Thurston Lane, Madison, WI 53711-4717

Phone: (608) 274-2000

County: Dane

Graduation Year: 1976

Law School: U of Wisconsin

Wisconsin Admission: 6/28/1976

[Tim Gratz]

Mark, I couldn't help this.

The statement I made was so OBVIOUSLY a joke and yet it was taken seriously.

Would you agree or not with the statement that a person of lower intelligence might be less likely to discern that someone is being facetious when it is obvious to persons of reasonable intelligence? It seems like a fair statement to me. I'll even try to obtain psychological or sociological evidence if my asseessment was correct.

And by the way why are all of your attacks directed to me. Sorry, here we go again: a person of intellectual integrity who claimed to be trying to uphold standards of decency would, I think, object to Stapleton's calling me a "cowardly charlatan". Do you agree that is an appropriate way to conduct oneself on an educational forum?

[Tim Gratz]

John, yes.

[Dixie Dea]

Doggone it. When is the actual lynching going to take place? Tim Graft has been found guilty

of a non specified crime and now we must tar and feather him. Or, maybe we could all take turns caning him, as they did the American boy in Singapore a few years ago, when I was also in Singapore. The difference is that although the boy pled innocent, he was found guilty BY LAW.The boy was caned, as his punishment and remarkably, after it was done, he walked over to his "canor" and shook his hand!!!

I am wondereing if perhaps there are others here who are reluctant to speak out against this seemingly lynch mob mindset? I have to admit that I have not wanted to be involved, so I have tryed to stay out of it. I am hesitant to refer to it as a controversy, since most everyone has made an opinion that Tim is guilty of something!

Shanet, made unsubstaniated accusations against Tim which he should not have done. Why he did this, I don't know, except it had nothing to do with me, so I just mostly ignored it.

Does everyone feel it was perfectly okay for Shanet to do this? That is the impression I am getting from everyone! Does everyone believe Tim should have just sloughed it off or maybe just laughed it off? We do not know how different things might impact on another person. So when they do not react to our own standards then we seem to find more reason to be critical of them,

Tim threatend Shanet with a lawsuit. To some, that is regarded as overkill er maybe even just a bluff...or bully boy tactics. For right or wrong, Tim did what he felt he needed to do, to stop the accusations. This is Tim's reputatiion we are talking about here, not ours!

Seemingly, this lawsuit threat brought an end to the threats by Shanet and he graciously apologized. But then he also chose to leave the forum. No one wanted to see Shanet do that and most would like to see him return. I am sure he would be welcome back anytime. Not everyone always agreed with Shanets theories, but I think we do believe he was sincere.

As for Tim, he continues to face adversity even though no one knows if he is innocent or guilty or actually even what the actual charges are. Tim has admitted to meeting with Segretti and also took $50.00 from him. I have no idea what Tim feels about this today. But, I do know that when I was much younger, I may have done things a whole lot different then I would today. I may even have believed i was doing the right thing at the time, and today realize that It was

not right at all. But, what can I now say, except that I did do it.

Did Tim do much more then he has admitted to? Was Bremer paid from a group that Tim was involved in? There is no specific charge against Tim in this, nor is the group even mentioned. What we do have is only Tim's denials. Yet, the lynch-mob is out for blood with no reason whatsoever...at this point. Except only the vague reference read in Spragues's book.

Tim, also has his Castro did it theories, which apparently none of us agree with him. He also has a way of turning every thread into the same Castro did it points. To most, it is quite tiresome to have every thread hi-jacked. We never get any place with any topic, because of seeming obsession of Tim's. Some believe that Tim is doing this for a purpose..has an agenda, is disinfo, govt. ect.

Is this true or not? We can suspect these things about Tim, all we want, but I doubt if any of us actually know what is true or not true. Come to think of it, I have the same suspicion of a couple of others here!!

Personally, although Tim has disagreed with me a few times, he has always been polite. But then of course I don't always expect everyone is going to agree with me anyway. But it is sure great if they do..:-)

If others here are annoyed with Tim, there are a few options to relieve yourself from having to read what he puts out. But my belief is that Tim has just as much rights to express his theories as we do. Personally, I have enjoyed reading the exchanges between Tim and R. Charles Dunne. I believe both have debated with civility towards each other.

Until or unless more info is obtained in regard to Tim's past or even his current possible affiliations, then to assume he is guilty is wrong. It appears that where there is smoke there is fire, but the lynch mob mentality has him starting the fire, when maybe there was not one to begin with. If, Tim is actually guilty of something beyond what he has admitted to,. I believe we are going to be finding that out, eventually. Until then, there is no reaason for this lynching party!

I am proibbaly going to get blasted for this post, but it won't be the first time that I have not conformed to a group mindset. It began to seem like by not speaking out, that I was condoning or just going along with the rest. Nope...I think my own thoughts and dream my own dreams! Above all, I hope not to make accusations to anyone when they are unsubstantiated charges. When I hear, "yes I did that." or see actual proof or documentation, then such charges are quite unnecessary and actually harmful. I do agree you are all welcome to believe as you wish, but I am also free to believe as I wish too.

"Hang me....Dang me"

__________________

Dixie

[Mark Knight]

...FOUR...

Your remarks just seem to increase in stupidity with each passing day.

[Tim Gratz]

Dixie, you do not know how much I appreciate that! I suspect there may be others who share your sentiments.

You are correct as well that I believe the debates between Robert Charles Dunne and I have been polite, and I do respect his intelligence and his often eloquent articulation of his arguments.

The problem is that terrible (and as you rightly characterized it) vague statement in Sprague's book. It says a "group" with which I associated funded Bremer but it does not identify the group. It implies I participated in the funding, but does not say so. Nor does it neccessarily state that the funding was related to the Bremer attempt on Wallace's life.

One indication that the Sprague statement is false is that he lumps me with Segretti when it is clear from the record that I objected to Segretti and did not even "take the hint" when CREEP first told me it had no objection if I wanted to work with him.

Also, of course, it makes no sense that I would get involved in a MURDER of all things when only a few months earlier I had objected to some of Segretti's proposals which were FAR MORE innocuous.

But now that this has been debated on the Forum, Sprague's statement may hang around my neck like an albatross until it can be determined why Sprague wrote it. Presumably that would involve locating and interviewing Turner, who Sprague cited as his source. Hopefully this can be accomplished. It could be that Sprague simply misinterpreted something Turner said. Such things happen. I remember when John started a thread on Felix Rodriguez and wrote that at the conference in England Larry Hancock had suggested that Rodriguez might be a suspect in the assassination. And Larry posted that that was not what he meant at all.

I am intrigued by the suggestion that someone from the Nixon campaign was trying to frame me in case I got too far off the reservation on the Segretti matter. It is certainly an interesting theory but I really doubt it was anything that Machievellian.

Thanks again for your comments, Dixie. I do feel I have suffered some abuse on the Forum merely because people disagree with my scenario.

[Mark Knight]

I'm not out to "lynch" Tim.

I'm out to show that his own words belie his statement that he shows respect for the intelligence of folks with whom he disagrees.

Tim has, on NUMEROUS occasions, questioned the intelligence of others on the forum. I have cited only FOUR examples so far; many more exist that I am aware of, in just the relatively short time I've been on the forum. And Tim has, to this point, only tried to rationalize his behavior, rather than to admit that his statement about showing respect for the intelligence of others is incorrect.

Tim, I ask you: Did you, or did you NOT, post the statements I have cited?

Do these statements, or do they NOT, question the intelligence of the person to whom they are directed?

If the answer to these two questions is "YES," then does that not prove your statement about respecting the intelligence of others is factually incorrect?

No further questions.

[John Simkin]

Tim threatend Shanet with a lawsuit. To some, that is regarded as overkill er maybe even just a bluff...or bully boy tactics. For right or wrong, Tim did what he felt he needed to do, to stop the accusations. This is Tim's reputatiion we are talking about here, not ours!

Tim also threatened me with legal action if I did not delete the offending post. I refused to do this because as Robert and Pat clearly pointed out, Shanet had not libeled Tim. Shanet was obviously frightened by Tim's knowledge of law (why don't you work as a lawyer Tim?) and withdrew his comments.

I do not find it acceptable that people threaten legal action against my Forum. As I pointed out, this Forum costs me money and time (which also means money as I am a freelance writer). I cannot afford to be sued and if this does happen I will close the Forum down. Maybe that is what Tim wants. Maybe that is what other people want. However, in the meantime I will keep it going and Tim can post as much as he likes. He can also say what he likes about me without fear of legal action being taken. I prefer to rely on logical argument rather than the law.