Tim Gratz's Forum Behaviour

[Myra Bronstein]

well....what exactly do you think is happening?

TG is a disinfo plant?

if that's the case, let him ride....

friends close, enemies closer.

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.

[Myra Bronstein]

Not that it's my job to defend Tim, but I feel compelled to point out that he is not as stuck in his ways as some might believe. A few years ago he was leaning towards Cuba or the KGB. Now he considers the mob a likely suspect. In another few years--who knows--maybe he'll conclude it was the CIA, and then we can all do a little jig.

I met Tim while on vacation in Key West and would be thoroughly surprised if he was involved in any deliberate disinformation campaign. He's just a little--shall we say--enthusiastic.

It was because of your request that I reinstated Tim.

...

Thannnnnnks Pat.

[Tom Kutzer]

"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."

do you?....if you're gonna call me kettle, you might take a look at the pot, no?

I've been reading this forum almost since Day 1...and read 5-6 times daily....though it did take me some time to register, granted.

I'm well aware of Mr.Gratz's history here....and fairly aware of his possibly former(?) career.

it's my opinion that most boards should have doubters....maybe you recognize the name vonPein?

why be afraid of someone that "calls us out" on our theories?...they tend to make people work harder....though that can be time consuming, I suppose.

and while I understand some people's annoyance at Mr. Gratz's "style", or lame threats, banning him seems to me to be just a bit hypocritical, and quite possibly counter productive.

cheers, and happy researching!

[Myra Bronstein]

"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."

do you?....if you're gonna call me kettle, you might take a look at the pot, no?

I've been reading this forum almost since Day 1...and read 5-6 times daily....though it did take me some time to register, granted.

I'm well aware of Mr.Gratz's history here....and fairly aware of his possibly former(?) career.

it's my opinion that most boards should have doubters....maybe you recognize the name vonPein?

why be afraid of someone that "calls us out" on our theories?...they tend to make people work harder....though that can be time consuming, I suppose.

and while I understand some people's annoyance at Mr. Gratz's "style", or lame threats, banning him seems to me to be just a bit hypocritical, and quite possibly counter productive.

cheers, and happy researching!

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.

[Pat Speer]

Not that it's my job to defend Tim, but I feel compelled to point out that he is not as stuck in his ways as some might believe. A few years ago he was leaning towards Cuba or the KGB. Now he considers the mob a likely suspect. In another few years--who knows--maybe he'll conclude it was the CIA, and then we can all do a little jig.

I met Tim while on vacation in Key West and would be thoroughly surprised if he was involved in any deliberate disinformation campaign. He's just a little--shall we say--enthusiastic.

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.

[Myra Bronstein]

Not that it's my job to defend Tim, but I feel compelled to point out that he is not as stuck in his ways as some might believe. A few years ago he was leaning towards Cuba or the KGB. Now he considers the mob a likely suspect. In another few years--who knows--maybe he'll conclude it was the CIA, and then we can all do a little jig.

I met Tim while on vacation in Key West and would be thoroughly surprised if he was involved in any deliberate disinformation campaign. He's just a little--shall we say--enthusiastic.

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.

[Tom Kutzer]

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, 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.....

[Myra Bronstein]

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, 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.

[Dawn Meredith]

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, 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.

I am confused, or missed something, but has Tim been banned again? If so why? (I have not noticed anything aside from his usual "was not an inside job" sentiments).

Dawn

[Shanet Clark]

should be exiled to our little siberia for dirty tricks