Len Colby Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I will submit a request to John Simkin to have those members placed on permanent moderation who threaten to expose (or expose) something unpleasant (and immaterial to the thread or case) about a fellow members past. Let this be a final warning. The moderators got this exchange backwards and are threatening the wrong person. Gratz threatened Lemkin first, to expose derogatory personal information about a personal matter long ago unrelated to anything under discussion here. Lemkin countered by saying he would expose THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF GRATZ'S DISBARMENT, which are relevant here in previous threads. This is a public matter, not personal. Jack Par for the course Jack has his facts completely wrong, I guess reading over the thread was too much effort: “Gratz threatened Lemkin first,” 1) It was Peter who initiated the “threats” in post # 8 he wrote: “Your posts are here to cause troubles to those you don't agree with, IMO. YES, we are friends! Mind your own F'n business and stop making trouble where none exists....if not I'll post the judge's decision on your 'case'.” Up to that point Tim had only made 3 posts one of which was a cut and paste article (#6), the other two (#4 & # 7) were directed at Peter but one would be hard stretched to define them as hostile no mention was made of “the Russell matter” in any of the three. 2) Tim never threatened Peter though one if paranoid enough define his response (#9) as a veiled threat, “Peter, a very interesting comment (threat) inasmuch as I have carefully avoided posting the details of the Russell matter so as not to embarass you.” Peter didn’t indicate he perceived this as a threat but rather got irate that Tim joked about his typos (#11): “ONE MORE PROVOCATION BY YOU AND THE FORUM WILL SEE WHAT YOU HAD TO DO TO AVOID FINE AND IMPRISONMENT WHEN YOUR LEGAL STATUS AS A PRACTICING LAWYER IN WI WAS REMOVED!” Once again it would be a stretch to even define Tim’s reply as a veiled threat (#12) “Again, I could have embarrassed you but chose not to. Maybe you should have a little appreciation.” “to expose derogatory personal information about a personal matter long ago unrelated to anything under discussion here. Lemkin countered by saying he would expose THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF GRATZ'S DISBARMENT, which are relevant here in previous threads. This is a public matter, not personal.” The “Russell mater” can longer really be considered “a personal matter” since it was discussed not only in this forum but in at least two books (or a book and a magazine article) it is of course related to JFK research and involved Dr Wecht. I may have missed it, since I don’t follow most threads here, but I fail to see any link between the assassination and Tim’s legal troubles. I don’t know if the records of Tim’s case being available to the public in Wisconsin makes it a public matter here. A close associate of Jack’s (also a member of this forum) had an embarrassing legal problem that was reported in the local press, I doubt he would appreciate it being brought up here. “The moderators got this exchange backwards and are threatening the wrong person.” Antti mentioned no names. You can’t have it both ways if you considered Tim’s comments threatening then Antti’s warning applied to him as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted January 5, 2008 Author Share Posted January 5, 2008 I knew I should have started a new thread. Thanks Mike for the update on this malicious prosecution. (I also receive it from Tree Frog) People, please, there is a thread to discuss T.G. I know he started this here, baiting Peter, but don't feed it. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Drago Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Correct, Dawn. As for "Colby" -- Don't bother, he isn't worth it. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 ... This Administration is the most vile one imaginable and that they will get off without Impeachment makes me ashamed of my country - fooled into even considering them; fooled into letting them steal the election twice!; fooled into the War on Terror; fooled into allowing the Patriot Act and other such policestate statutes; fooled into the offical fiction of 911; fooled into all the torture, extralegal arrests, detainment and lack of council and trials..even charges for many; fooled with the lies for the war on Iraq and Afghanistan; .... Alone the word "Homeland" scared me when it was first used, with its un-American kinship to the words related to two of the world's recent and substantially more "vile" dictatorships, "Fatherland" (Nazi Germany) and "Motherland" (Soviet Russia). I don't know why the department couldn't have been called "Civil Defense" or "National Security" or something of a less strident nature. George Orwell was thinking a few years in advance of the reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ecker Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Alone the word "Homeland" scared me when it was first used One of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was, per the PNAC's published agenda, to establish a U.S. military presence in the Gulf region. I'm surprised that the Bush regime hasn't referred to it as "living space" (Nazi "Lebensraum") for the U.S. military. Was there a Nazi German semantic equivalent to "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 One of the reasons for the invasion of Iraq was, per the PNAC's published agenda, to establish a U.S. military presence in the Gulf region. I'm surprised that the Bush regime hasn't referred to it as "living space" (Nazi "Lebensraum") for the U.S. military.Was there a Nazi German semantic equivalent to "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Ja. Es wurde ein freundliches Gespräch genannt! (Here is where the ad for dictionary.com goes!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duke Lane Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 Alone the word "Homeland" scared me when it was first used...AMY GOODMAN: You also talk about the language, like the Department of Homeland Security. NAOMI WOLF: That is where I, as a social critic and a student of language, get really scared. It's scary enough to see these ten steps, but what is terrifying to me personally is how many actual phrases are being recycled, and tactics. "Homeland security"—"heimat"—became popularized by the National Socialists. ... Fascinating. And here I'd begun to think I was the only one who'd noticed! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I will submit a request to John Simkin to have those members placed on permanent moderation who threaten to expose (or expose) something unpleasant (and immaterial to the thread or case) about a fellow members past. Let this be a final warning. The moderators got this exchange backwards and are threatening the wrong person. Gratz threatened Lemkin first, to expose derogatory personal information about a personal matter long ago unrelated to anything under discussion here. Lemkin countered by saying he would expose THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF GRATZ'S DISBARMENT, which are relevant here in previous threads. This is a public matter, not personal. Jack Par for the course Jack has his facts completely wrong, I guess reading over the thread was too much effort: “Gratz threatened Lemkin first,” 1) It was Peter who initiated the “threats” in post # 8 he wrote: “Your posts are here to cause troubles to those you don't agree with, IMO. YES, we are friends! Mind your own F'n business and stop making trouble where none exists....if not I'll post the judge's decision on your 'case'.” Up to that point Tim had only made 3 posts one of which was a cut and paste article (#6), the other two (#4 & # 7) were directed at Peter but one would be hard stretched to define them as hostile no mention was made of “the Russell matter” in any of the three. 2) Tim never threatened Peter though one if paranoid enough define his response (#9) as a veiled threat, “Peter, a very interesting comment (threat) inasmuch as I have carefully avoided posting the details of the Russell matter so as not to embarass you.” Peter didn’t indicate he perceived this as a threat but rather got irate that Tim joked about his typos (#11): “ONE MORE PROVOCATION BY YOU AND THE FORUM WILL SEE WHAT YOU HAD TO DO TO AVOID FINE AND IMPRISONMENT WHEN YOUR LEGAL STATUS AS A PRACTICING LAWYER IN WI WAS REMOVED!” Once again it would be a stretch to even define Tim’s reply as a veiled threat (#12) “Again, I could have embarrassed you but chose not to. Maybe you should have a little appreciation.” “to expose derogatory personal information about a personal matter long ago unrelated to anything under discussion here. Lemkin countered by saying he would expose THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF GRATZ'S DISBARMENT, which are relevant here in previous threads. This is a public matter, not personal.” The “Russell mater” can longer really be considered “a personal matter” since it was discussed not only in this forum but in at least two books (or a book and a magazine article) it is of course related to JFK research and involved Dr Wecht. I may have missed it, since I don’t follow most threads here, but I fail to see any link between the assassination and Tim’s legal troubles. I don’t know if the records of Tim’s case being available to the public in Wisconsin makes it a public matter here. A close associate of Jack’s (also a member of this forum) had an embarrassing legal problem that was reported in the local press, I doubt he would appreciate it being brought up here. “The moderators got this exchange backwards and are threatening the wrong person.” Antti mentioned no names. You can’t have it both ways if you considered Tim’s comments threatening then Antti’s warning applied to him as well. I assume that Colby has no access to private emails between Lemkin and me. These exchanges are what I based my posting on, not this thread. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted January 5, 2008 Share Posted January 5, 2008 I will submit a request to John Simkin to have those members placed on permanent moderation who threaten to expose (or expose) something unpleasant (and immaterial to the thread or case) about a fellow members past. Let this be a final warning. The moderators got this exchange backwards and are threatening the wrong person. Gratz threatened Lemkin first, to expose derogatory personal information about a personal matter long ago unrelated to anything under discussion here. Lemkin countered by saying he would expose THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF GRATZ'S DISBARMENT, which are relevant here in previous threads. This is a public matter, not personal. Jack Par for the course Jack has his facts completely wrong, I guess reading over the thread was too much effort: “Gratz threatened Lemkin first,” 1) It was Peter who initiated the “threats” in post # 8 he wrote: “Your posts are here to cause troubles to those you don't agree with, IMO. YES, we are friends! Mind your own F'n business and stop making trouble where none exists....if not I'll post the judge's decision on your 'case'.” Up to that point Tim had only made 3 posts one of which was a cut and paste article (#6), the other two (#4 & # 7) were directed at Peter but one would be hard stretched to define them as hostile no mention was made of “the Russell matter” in any of the three. 2) Tim never threatened Peter though one if paranoid enough define his response (#9) as a veiled threat, “Peter, a very interesting comment (threat) inasmuch as I have carefully avoided posting the details of the Russell matter so as not to embarass you.” Peter didn’t indicate he perceived this as a threat but rather got irate that Tim joked about his typos (#11): “ONE MORE PROVOCATION BY YOU AND THE FORUM WILL SEE WHAT YOU HAD TO DO TO AVOID FINE AND IMPRISONMENT WHEN YOUR LEGAL STATUS AS A PRACTICING LAWYER IN WI WAS REMOVED!” Once again it would be a stretch to even define Tim’s reply as a veiled threat (#12) “Again, I could have embarrassed you but chose not to. Maybe you should have a little appreciation.” “to expose derogatory personal information about a personal matter long ago unrelated to anything under discussion here. Lemkin countered by saying he would expose THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF GRATZ'S DISBARMENT, which are relevant here in previous threads. This is a public matter, not personal.” The “Russell mater” can longer really be considered “a personal matter” since it was discussed not only in this forum but in at least two books (or a book and a magazine article) it is of course related to JFK research and involved Dr Wecht. I may have missed it, since I don’t follow most threads here, but I fail to see any link between the assassination and Tim’s legal troubles. I don’t know if the records of Tim’s case being available to the public in Wisconsin makes it a public matter here. A close associate of Jack’s (also a member of this forum) had an embarrassing legal problem that was reported in the local press, I doubt he would appreciate it being brought up here. “The moderators got this exchange backwards and are threatening the wrong person.” Antti mentioned no names. You can’t have it both ways if you considered Tim’s comments threatening then Antti’s warning applied to him as well. I assume that Colby has no access to private emails between Lemkin and me. These exchanges are what I based my posting on, not this thread. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) 2X Edited January 7, 2008 by Len Colby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Len Colby Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 (edited) Par for the course Jack has his facts completely wrong, I guess reading over the thread was too much effort: I assume that Colby has no access to private emails between Lemkin and me. These exchanges are what I based my posting on, not this thread. Jack You’re right Jack I don’t have access to your or Peter’s e-mail accounts thus I had no way of know he apparently misinformed you about the sequence of the “threats” on this thread. I don’t see how that serves as a defense though, no matter what he told you, you should have looked at the thread to verify what the truth was berating the moderators. Edited January 7, 2008 by Len Colby 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