Myra Bronstein

Kathy, it seems like you've just made the case for maintaining an unmoderated forum. So, please tell me why there are moderators on this forum if what you say is true.

By this you mean where the post is origininating from physically? Or other? Doesn't sound like a progam one is going to easily get one's hands on...and where is not the problem...it is the post itself that is....perhaps Charles and Myra are closest to the right answer...ignore...there is only one problem with ignore. For example I post a piece on Guernica being a false-flag op. Colby fires back a 'prove it' post [even though reading the original post would have provided the answer]. A newbee or visitor from the internet will likely go to the last [most recent] post first and seeing Colby's post assume the prior post contained NO information about about it being a false-flag operation and move on without reading the whole thread.....the hatchet-job done and my post much diminished. ... That's very true. Ideally the reader will have the attention span and capacity for critical thought to read further and judge for themselves.

PETER WROTE: "I further object that the same person has posted on my biography and would ask that his post on my biography be removed or moved. He is not entitled [nor as far as I'm concerned welcome] to add, subtract or try to discredit my biography." I agree, Peter, that attacking someone's bio is over the line. I consider it harassment. Do the mods agree? And from what I've seen Len's posts fall into one of two categories: 1) Demanding citation on every word no matter how casual or irrelevant. 2) Rejecting the citation as insufficiently authoritative. He could automate his posts to accomplish the same thing. Once "authoritative" citations are provided he goes invisible. I see no evolution of perspective or incorporation of new information into his framework of beliefs or attempt at meeting of minds or processing of new information. I just see hectoring, with absolutely no positive contribution to the discussion or research on the given topic.

Do it; take the initiative. And I appreciate the fact that you're focused on solutions.

I know you can't count them Craig, but can you give at least one example to back up your assertion?

Bravo, Jack! Perfectly stated! (And Mark. )

Let's dump the title Charles. You're a far better person that the actual Prince Charles so it doesn't do you justice.

How does this apply to the thread John S. started about Tim Gratz John? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10672

Charles, who is trying to do that? I assume he's talking about this post of mine Mike, #81: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=115566 I said: "I don't understand why someone who is only here to heckle is allowed to remain on the forum. He seems to be the only forum member who is not expected to comply with the rules." I think it's reasonable and accurate to describe what I said as an attempt to silence someone. And it's because I think Gratz makes every thread about him instead of about the topic, and I think it's absurd and disruptive, and I don't think he's here in good faith to advance the research. But I've said my piece so I'm done with the subject.

Yeah yeah you're a prince I get it. But you should say "they do ME no harm." IMO non-stop aggravation is harm. I don't particularly care because I use my "ignore" option for anyone like that. But it is tiresome nonetheless, and this is a moderated forum, and I think it's reasonable to wonder out loud why some people get away with so much.

Good point Bernice. And I'll add that Rich is an extremely accessible individual, and his forum is accessible, so both can easily be judged first hand.

I have found that I cannot benefit from discussions with Len, and his remarks on this thread display so many of the qualities that led me to that conclusion. By contrast I can and do benefit from discussions with Rich.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/cuban-...7462495675.html "Cuban Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque today said President Fidel Castro was still recovering from his operation last year and was keeping busy, having personally instructed him on his visit to Brazil. While attending the Forum for East Asia Latin American Co-operation (FEALAC), Roque, in an interview with AFP, dispelled rumours about Castro's health taking a turn for the worse since his 81st birthday on August 13." FWIW. When he does die I think we can expect yet another wave of anti-JFK propaganda.

yes, I'm aware.....but i'm sorry, i don't agree with banning Mr.Gratz... have you taken a look at the Churchill/Hess/Sikorski thread lately? while I tend to sympathise with Prof. Simkins premise, the questions arising present an oppurtunity. to make your case. or not. we, as a group, are labeled "dissenters", or worse.....when the oppurtunity arises to successfully refute one of the "other side", why would we reject it? I'm not talking Miller vs. White and or Healy... but the opportunity to to show that the cover story concealing the memory/rabbit hole isn't perfect....obviously, there are flaws....and if someone with Mr.Gratz's resume wants to hang it out in the breeze....and be so very opinionated about it...why censor him? it's just ammo......probably not 6mm ammo, but a glimpse of what you're/we're up against....you can either flip out, shine it on, or try to understand. and just so you know where I stand, Ms. Bronstein.....Myra, if I may.... Dave Morales....Rip and Buddies......Papa Bush....Fascism sucks. If the world's most powerful nation was only run the way it was meant to be..... There's no case to make Tom, Mr. Kutzer if I may. John and Andy and the mods have already made the rules and now it's up to them to apply them as they deem appropriate. I think Gratz's actions constitute harassment so I consider this case an appropriate one to apply the rules to. A matter of opinion, to which I'm entitled. If you object to the rules then you may want to debate them with the mods. I already debated the proposed rules back when the subject was open to debate.

It was because of your request that I reinstated Tim. ... Thannnnnnks Pat. It wasn't as simple as my asking for his reinstatement. John had written something about Tim, to which Tim had been trying to respond. Tim complained about this to me and I brought it to John's attention. If Tim's ability to comment had been limited to threads about Tim himself, I'd have had no problem. I'm sorry Pat. It's not like you owe any explanation. And you're certainly not responsible for anyone else's behavior. I was out of line giving you attitude.

Everyone's reporting as a rumor Harry. Apparently he hasn't been seen for a while... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430710/

If you were aware of the history here you'd know he was already banned at least once after extreme provocation. Past behavior is an indicator of future behavior.

Yes, good find Mike. Thanks.

I'm glad I'm not partaking of whatever you're on Alan 'cause I can see a form that could be a person with a camera and tripod. It definitely warrants further scrutiny. Especially given the fact that some have stated they've seen a second film of the assassination. Jack, I don't know cameras. Is it likely that an average person would have a 16mm in 1963, or is that a camera that a pro was more likely to have? Myra, did you clik the thumbnail in my post to see a superior frame from Nix that shows nothing there? Maybe there is another Nix film too? One shows a camerman the other does not. As for the shadow itself, to me it's a old man wearing a beret with a long white beard on a skateboard. How can he be filming if he's on a skateboard? No I didn't notice that Alan. I'll check it out. So, you think ZZ Top may have been there?

It was because of your request that I reinstated Tim. ... Thannnnnnks Pat.

Do you always offer opinions and advice before you take the time to look into the situation, and learn the history and facts? If so I'll give your input the consideration it's due.

I find your presumptiousness amusing. You don't have a clue what the issues and problems are with Gratz, and that's evident in your little snipe.

I'm glad I'm not partaking of whatever you're on Alan 'cause I can see a form that could be a person with a camera and tripod. It definitely warrants further scrutiny. Especially given the fact that some have stated they've seen a second film of the assassination. Jack, I don't know cameras. Is it likely that an average person would have a 16mm in 1963, or is that a camera that a pro was more likely to have?

Your assurance is misplaced. I take no solace in his presence or antics. Furthermore I don't need a perpetual devil's advocate to bolster my views. And don't call me "Shirley."

A select few have long said they had been shown portions of a film that seemed to have been filmed from very near the Z position, but showing things different than in the Z film.....could this be the cameraman [i'd guess MI]. Can't wait to see this image......great work! Can you elaborate on what different things the other film (x-film?) showed Peter?