John Simkin Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Tim, It is always a little confusing to me [http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirstTEXT.html] the thrust of your statements at times. I was serious while being funny about the Who's On FIrst 'role'. Mix things up; make them repeat; no forward progress; non-existant errors of logic made 'evident'. Etc. Is it your thrust here that the noble CIA and their minions were only trying to be more like their 'betters' the KGB? Both systems were and are about control by a few of the many - they just used different means. And NO it is not choose the lesser of evils. There are an infinite number of possible ways to set up a polity and society and while the USSR was, yes, repugnant, I sadly find 'Western Democracies' also guilty of great crimes.....which we try to discuss here to stop them from being repeated......One Evil Empire down...one to go..........third base.....third base... Several members have complained about Tim's behaviour the last few days. As you say, he definitely tries to change the direction of threads. I suppose the best way of dealing with him is to ignore him. If you try to respond to him he is being successful. Only a few weeks ago he said he was too busy to defend his views on the Iraq War. For some reason he now has a lot of time on his hands (he does not appear to take off time for sleeping). Maybe he is between jobs. Maybe he has signed a new contract that pays him by the word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Tim, It is always a little confusing to me [http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirstTEXT.html] the thrust of your statements at times. I was serious while being funny about the Who's On FIrst 'role'. Mix things up; make them repeat; no forward progress; non-existant errors of logic made 'evident'. Etc. Is it your thrust here that the noble CIA and their minions were only trying to be more like their 'betters' the KGB? Both systems were and are about control by a few of the many - they just used different means. And NO it is not choose the lesser of evils. There are an infinite number of possible ways to set up a polity and society and while the USSR was, yes, repugnant, I sadly find 'Western Democracies' also guilty of great crimes.....which we try to discuss here to stop them from being repeated......One Evil Empire down...one to go..........third base.....third base... Several members have complained about Tim's behaviour the last few days. As you say, he definitely tries to change the direction of threads. I suppose the best way of dealing with him is to ignore him. If you try to respond to him he is being successful. Only a few weeks ago he said he was too busy to defend his views on the Iraq War. For some reason he now has a lot of time on his hands (he does not appear to take off time for sleeping). Maybe he is between jobs. Maybe he has signed a new contract that pays him by the word. I have been watching him for the past hour. A few minutes ago he had eight of the eleven postings on page one of the forum, seemingly an attempt to flood the message board. Most of the postings are a sentence or two of insignificance. Thanks for noticing. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Jack, your characterization is flat out wrong. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Tim, It is always a little confusing to me [http://www.phoenix5.org/humor/WhoOnFirstTEXT.html] the thrust of your statements at times. I was serious while being funny about the Who's On FIrst 'role'. Mix things up; make them repeat; no forward progress; non-existant errors of logic made 'evident'. Etc. Is it your thrust here that the noble CIA and their minions were only trying to be more like their 'betters' the KGB? Both systems were and are about control by a few of the many - they just used different means. And NO it is not choose the lesser of evils. There are an infinite number of possible ways to set up a polity and society and while the USSR was, yes, repugnant, I sadly find 'Western Democracies' also guilty of great crimes.....which we try to discuss here to stop them from being repeated......One Evil Empire down...one to go..........third base.....third base... Several members have complained about Tim's behaviour the last few days. As you say, he definitely tries to change the direction of threads. I suppose the best way of dealing with him is to ignore him. If you try to respond to him he is being successful. Only a few weeks ago he said he was too busy to defend his views on the Iraq War. For some reason he now has a lot of time on his hands (he does not appear to take off time for sleeping). Maybe he is between jobs. Maybe he has signed a new contract that pays him by the word. I have been watching him for the past hour. A few minutes ago he had eight of the eleven postings on page one of the forum, seemingly an attempt to flood the message board. Most of the postings are a sentence or two of insignificance. Thanks for noticing. Jack Well clearly there is an agenda to hinder us. To wind people up, waste their time, dispute the undisputible, demand explanations of the previously explained, and be the last person to post in every thread with, as Jack said, unsubstantial messages. He makes a point of hanging out in a forum dedicated to learning about a massive conspiracy and ridiculing the mere suggestion that anything could be a conspiracy. I can just put him on ignore easily enough, and was about to do so. But that won't solve the problem of him insuring that he is the most recent poster so we can't see if a sincere forum member has posted something worth reading. I do wonder why the prospect of moderating his posts hasn't been raised by those with the capability to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Myra: Please cite when I have ever ridiculed the "mere idea that there could be a conspiracy". I believe there was a conspiracy to kill JFK as fervently as any member does. We simply disagree on who the probable conspirators were. You wrote that I "demand explanations of the previously explained"; well, look at my thread, times a'wastin' where I asked members to post any evidentiary basis that the assassination was an "inside job". No one yet has been able to post a single evidentiary basis--except the one suggestion I made for a theory ("security stripping") that I believe is discredited. What troubles you I think is that there you know there is no explanation for 90% of the assertions posted here. Why don't you go to "Times a'wastin'" and post your evidentiary basis for believing the conspiracy was an inside job. Greg Parker, whose intelligence and logic I admire even though I oft disagree with him, posted on that thread that he has never taken the position that the assassination was an inside job. Mr. Parker I find to be a person who does not engage in wild speculations and whose postings are based on careful research and always merit careful study. Edited August 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 Well clearly there is an agenda to hinder us. To wind people up, waste their time, dispute the undisputible, demand explanations of the previously explained, and be the last person to post in every thread with, as Jack said, unsubstantial messages. He makes a point of hanging out in a forum dedicated to learning about a massive conspiracy and ridiculing the mere suggestion that anything could be a conspiracy. I can just put him on ignore easily enough, and was about to do so. But that won't solve the problem of him insuring that he is the most recent poster so we can't see if a sincere forum member has posted something worth reading. I do wonder why the prospect of moderating his posts hasn't been raised by those with the capability to do so. For a while Tim was banned from this forum because he threatened to sue members because of their claims he was involved in a Republican Party dirty tricks campaign during the Watergate Scandal. A couple of members asked for him to be reinstated. I agreed to this as I thought it would provide a good opportunity for Tim to explain his current views on the Iraq War (Tim, except for Craig, was about the only member of this forum who supported this military venture at the time). I thought we might get some rational debate about this issue, but unfortunately this has not been the case. I was also hoping to persuade him to talk more about his activities when he was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom movement (a nasty right-wing organization in the 1960s and 1970s centred around the racist views of William Buckley and the John Birch Society). We could put him on moderation, however, his frequent posts would take up a lot of time for moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) John wrote: "I thought we might get some rational debate about this issue [the war in Iraq], but unfortunately this has not been the case." Do not understand, John. I posted the very thoughtful New York Times opinion piece by Michael O'Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack, an essay that has been influencing a lot of policy-makers in DC. I do not believe you ever responded to it. Nor did you respond to the essay by Michael Barone about the changing perceptions about the war in Iraq. You call this Forum the "JFK Assassination Debate". It can hardly be a debate if everyone's views on the assassination are the same. By the way, are you ever going to post any evidentiary reason you have to assert the assassination was an inside job (in the "Times a' wastin'" thread)? Edited August 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Well clearly there is an agenda to hinder us. To wind people up, waste their time, dispute the undisputible, demand explanations of the previously explained, and be the last person to post in every thread with, as Jack said, unsubstantial messages. He makes a point of hanging out in a forum dedicated to learning about a massive conspiracy and ridiculing the mere suggestion that anything could be a conspiracy. I can just put him on ignore easily enough, and was about to do so. But that won't solve the problem of him insuring that he is the most recent poster so we can't see if a sincere forum member has posted something worth reading. I do wonder why the prospect of moderating his posts hasn't been raised by those with the capability to do so. For a while Tim was banned from this forum because he threatened to sue members because of their claims he was involved in a Republican Party dirty tricks campaign during the Watergate Scandal. A couple of members asked for him to be reinstated. I agreed to this as I thought it would provide a good opportunity for Tim to explain his current views on the Iraq War (Tim, except for Craig, was about the only member of this forum who supported this military venture at the time). I thought we might get some rational debate about this issue, but unfortunately this has not been the case. I was also hoping to persuade him to talk more about his activities when he was a member of the Young Americans for Freedom movement (a nasty right-wing organization in the 1960s and 1970s centred around the racist views of William Buckley and the John Birch Society). We could put him on moderation, however, his frequent posts would take up a lot of time for moderators. I see. That's a good point. Well I'm sure you'll determine the best course of action. I'll just use the good ol' ignore feature and be blissfully oblivious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Myra wrote: "I'll just use the good ol' ignore feature and be blissfully oblivious." Why of course you will! It can be less than blissful to read things with which you disagree and that runs the danger that you might even learn something! Arguments are to be avoided; they are always vulgar, and often convincing. - Oscar Wilde Edited August 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Gratz Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 (edited) Nonsense! Peter, it is you that have posted utter nonsense, to-wit: 1. That there was some mechanism that made it a pre-requisite to be elected president that one agree to participate in the cover-up of the JFK assassination. 2. That there are laws (a law?) on the books authorizing the repeal of elections. All VB need to do to support his theory that assassinatrion researchers are "wacko" is to cite some of your postings. I don't suppose you have received any money under the table from VB? You sure help him demonstrate his point. Edited August 8, 2007 by Tim Gratz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 Nonsense!Peter, it is you that have posted utter nonsense, to-wit: 1. That there was some mechanism that made it a pre-requisite to be elected president that one agree to participate in the cover-up of the JFK assassination. Apparently....RFK was killed so he couldn't solve the crime and all who were going-along to get along with the big lie were ushered in. Your blindness is fake, IMO. 2. That there are laws (a law?) on the books authorizing the repeal of elections. It is a mix of Continuity of Government and [un]Patriot Act provisions. All VB need to do to support his theory that assassinatrion researchers are "wacko" is to cite some of your postings. I don't suppose you have received any money under the table from VB? You sure help him demonstrate his point. Let me ask you a question. When I was more actively working on the assassination I used to get nightly phone threats....was it the ghost of LHO or whom?????...more likely some of your CIA crowd. I lost all my money at that time for trying to tell the truth. Keepers of the BIG LIE do very well - often millionaires; those who try to expose the corruption / treason often have a variety of strange problems from financial to death. You are well educated and can, when you want, provide arguements. In your current incarnation you are only acting as an agent provocateur and I for one ain't taken the bait any further. Iused to think TG was an agent provocateur, but now I think it is just that he is so Republican and unquestioning of the government that he is just unable to believe it was "an inside job". He favors the writers who push the spin agenda, the false sponser Castro/ Soviet nonsense. He knows too much about the case to be a lone nutter, so he cherry picks his evidence. Ultimately I agnore him I do think he does sincerely care about this case, but with blinders on. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 ...http://www.sandiego.indymedia.org/media/2007/02/125025.pdf Antidote for the nonsense of Tim Gratz...would gladly give a longer reference list. ... Peter, Are you saying that you're aware of other online books that are relevant? I maintain a list here: http://www.jfktimeline.com/onlinebooks.html So if you know of any not on the list please let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 You are well educated and can, when you want, provide arguements. In your current incarnation you are only acting as an agent provocateur and I for one ain't taken the bait any further. Iused to think TG was an agent provocateur, but now I think it is just that he is so Republican and unquestioning of the government that he is just unable to believe it was "an inside job". He favors the writers who push the spin agenda, the false sponser Castro/ Soviet nonsense. He knows too much about the case to be a lone nutter, so he cherry picks his evidence.Ultimately I agnore him I do think he does sincerely care about this case, but with blinders on. Dawn Well that's the most annoying part. He's informed and smart (and clearly energetic ), but he plays these time-wasting manipulative games. I don't feel he's sincere in his discourse. And I'm not willing to be jerked around. So I pulled the plug. Ah well, onward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted August 8, 2007 Author Share Posted August 8, 2007 I maintain a list here:http://www.jfktimeline.com/onlinebooks.html So if you know of any not on the list please let me know. I hope you have Richard E. Sprague's, The Taking of America. It includes an interesting section on our mate Tim Gratz. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp8.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted August 8, 2007 Share Posted August 8, 2007 I maintain a list here:http://www.jfktimeline.com/onlinebooks.html So if you know of any not on the list please let me know. I hope you have Richard E. Sprague's, The Taking of America. It includes an interesting section on our mate Tim Gratz. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp8.html It would be enlightening if Mr. Gratz would fill us in on his contacts with Bremer. Jack 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