The Blumenthal law?
Dai Uy
X-URL: http://www.deseretnews.com/blog/33/10009181/Jay-Evensens-perspectives-on-the-news-The-Blumenthal-law.html
or http://tinyurl.com/33wljm4
The Blumenthal law?
Jay Evensen
editorial page editor | May 26, 2010
Lying politicians, beware.
Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch would like to add an amendment to the Stolen
Valor Act, making it a crime to make a false statement about having
participated in combat operations in the military. Doing so would land
you in jail for six months and/or saddle you with a fine.
This would seem to be a direct response to Connecticut attorney
general and Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal's recent
lies about serving in Vietnam.
The Stolen Valor Act makes it illegal to falsely wear military
decorations and medals. In proposing his amendment, Hatch said, "It is
a crime to dishonor the sacrifice of so many by falsely representing
combat service for the purposes of self-promotion or benefit. My
amendment would deter those who would falsely prop themselves up in
order to appear worthy of the award and title of 'combat veteran.'
More...
***
Nigel Brooks
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4aa123ab-a20c-439c...@z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
If they do amend 18USC704 I certainly hope that they do so in such a way as
to preclude any wiggle room or contorted explanations.
I'm sure everyone remembers one individual claiming to have been
"personally" involved in the battle for Hue and the Au Shaw Valley (sic)
who, when it was proven he could not have been present at those battles -
claimed that his personal involvement was gained through his processing of
transfers in the 25th Admin Co Officer records section.
Jack G.
> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4aa123ab-a20c-439c...@z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > X-URL:
>
> - Show quoted text -
I hope the Blumenthal Law is passed and has a retroactive clause in
it.
Then maybe Dougie will get his just rewards.
Jack G,
MAC
<markrealmil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Posting nonsense like this with absolutely no proof is not acceptable
=================================
Little "Mark" actually posted the above !!
I think the irony meter just pegged out...
-Mac, the Medic
MAC
wrote:
>
>
>"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:4aa123ab-a20c-439c...@z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> X-URL:
>> http://www.deseretnews.com/blog/33/10009181/Jay-Evensens-perspectives-on-the-news-The-Blumenthal-law.html
>> or http://tinyurl.com/33wljm4
>>
>> The Blumenthal law?
>> Jay Evensen
>> editorial page editor | May 26, 2010
>>
>> Lying politicians, beware.
>>
>> Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch would like to add an amendment to the Stolen
>> Valor Act, making it a crime to make a false statement about having
>> participated in combat operations in the military. Doing so would land
>> you in jail for six months and/or saddle you with a fine.
>>
>> This would seem to be a direct response to Connecticut attorney
>> general and Democratic Senate candidate Richard Blumenthal's recent
>> lies about serving in Vietnam.
>>
>> The Stolen Valor Act makes it illegal to falsely wear military
>> decorations and medals. In proposing his amendment, Hatch said, "It is
>> a crime to dishonor the sacrifice of so many by falsely representing
>> combat service for the purposes of self-promotion or benefit. My
>> amendment would deter those who would falsely prop themselves up in
>> order to appear worthy of the award and title of 'combat veteran.'
>>
>> More...
>>
>> ***
NIGEL:
>If they do amend 18USC704 I certainly hope that they do so in such a way as
>to preclude any wiggle room or contorted explanations.
>
>I'm sure everyone remembers one individual claiming to have been
>"personally" involved in the battle for Hue and the Au Shaw Valley (sic)
>who, when it was proven he could not have been present at those battles -
>claimed that his personal involvement was gained through his processing of
>transfers in the 25th Admin Co Officer records section.
=========== ===========
Oh, my!
I had forgotten the extent of that.
Thanks.
-Mac, the Medic
Nigel Brooks
"Mac the Medic" <markrealmil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgotv5tfl8ss19ars...@4ax.com...
> I will be glad if this act passes. Having been to combat it pisses me
> off when people make false claims the contrary, brag about alleged
> awards, etc. We all remember that one critter who made such claims but
> then the facts came out that when it was time to show courage he hid
> under a truck.
>
The closest you've ever been to combat and a uniform is when that brownie
kicked your ass
Mac the Other
anymore? I ain't been called a right wing kook in a while I wonder
what his opinion of Obama is now.... <G>
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:8686h3...@mid.individual.net...
MAC
<markrealmil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I would like them to add to this bill that it be a felony for someone
>who served only as a little spec4 in service yet claims to have earned
>the rank of SG
===================
Hmmmmmmmm, you still have NOT provided any PROOF of your accusation.
-Mac, the Medic
DGVREIMAN
I agree to some extent. Such as someone claiming they participated in
actual combat and did not, or someone that claimed he participated in
a key combat campaign such as the Tet offensive, and did not.
However, words parsed and distorted by con men should of course not
apply, as we see below in my rebuttal to Nigel Brooks obvious fraud:
>
> I'm sure everyone remembers one individual claiming to have been
> "personally" involved in the battle for Hue and the Au Shaw Valley
> (sic) who, when it was proven he could not have been present at
> those battles - claimed that his personal involvement was gained
> through his processing of transfers in the 25th Admin Co Officer
> records section.
Mr. Brooks, what you read on USENET needs to be explained by the
author. Only morons and con men will change the context of a USENET
post and then use their own forgeries, fraud and out of context cons
to smear and defame.
If you were involved in a battle in any way you were thereby
"involved" in it. If a person loaded bombs in a B-52 that dropped its
load in one of those campaigns then the bomb loader was "involved."
If someone helped to select or send men into a battle of course he
was "involved." I believe only a con man/hate merchant spewing
outright fraud would try to change the definition of "Involved".
Here is the defination of Involved:
Involve >v. 1 (of a situation or event) include as a necessary part
or result. 2 [as adj. involved] connected, typically on an emotional
or personal level. 3 [as adj. involved] complicated.
-DERIVATIVES involvement >n.
Obviously, even if you were serving in Vietnam at the time and were
connected in anyway to those major battles, emotionally or otherwise,
you were INVOLVED in those events. And helping to select and send key
personnell to those areas certainly means that person was INVOLVED!
A Shau started in April 1968 from my perspective (Officers to Thua
Thien Provience (especialy LLRP) was a priority and the dinks had
already chased a Special Forces force out of the area - so then it
became up to the Air Cav and other elements of Infantry Units to
defeat the enemy and drive them out of the Vally). I arrived in
Vietnam during that tour in early February 1968 - just in time for the
1968 Tet offensive and counteroffensive battles. (Nigel Brooks missed
the 1968 Tet offensive, he was long out of the service when it began
so he does not, as usual, have a clue about what went on other than
what he can read in some biased newspaper account).
The battle of Hue started during the 1968 Tet offensive. But it was
in Feb 1968 when there was an almost desperate call for ARVN and other
troops and support officers to go to Hue.
Attempting to con and change the term Involved into "participate" is
nothing more than a typical con, from someone that seems to specialize
in fraud, cons, and false accusations.
We all know that only a con man would claim "involved" meant "fought
in" or "participated in" - anyone that knows how to read would know
that changing a definition of a word into something different for the
purpose of conning readers, lying about someone's past service, and
otherwise defaming and conning readers to believe a false light
statement based upon some con that changes the definition and context
of a word, is, well akin to being an obvious "con man."
If someone wanted to say he fought in a battle, he would simply say
so. "Fought" is clearly a different term than "Involved." But con
men will seize on any opportunity to forge, falsely convey and distort
the clear meanings of common terms to serve their obvious malicious
and deliberate desire to smear and defame people that have caught them
in mid con and have revealed to all the true unethical and pitiful
nature of these con and hate merchants.
Brooks is obviously desperate to discredit me - regardless of the
fraud and cons he must once again resort to. I will post my rebuttals
to his fraud each time. Anyone rational can see this pathetic excuse
for a person is just using more desperate cons and fraud to defame.
I should also mention:
Speaking of Vietnam Vets:
Tom Rau stated as a statement of fact on this forum, without any basis
of fact, investigation whatsoever, that I "dodged" Vietnam. He also
stated several other outrageous and similar frauds and cons and lies
about me and my Honorable military service.
When former OCS wonder Junior Reserve Officers smear real veterans,
especially those that spent much more time in Vietnam than they did,
and probably saw much more combat than the junior reserve OCS wonder,
I can only say that any member of the Nigel Brooks hate gang that
spews unfounded lies, defamation and false light cons about other
Veteran's service is NOT someone that I would ever envy - not to
mention respect, not to mention not feel utter contempt for, and
ashamed that he would be allowed to wear the same uniform I once wore.
I also find it amazing that Tom Rau repeatedly posts any report of a
false Vet he can find (which we all can easily read in a dozen other
sources) to bolster and add credibility to the outright fraud he posts
about other real Veterans. Can there be anything lower that some con
man lying about a real Veteran's service? Talk about stolen valor, is
not such fraud and false accusations the epitome of stolen valor?
Posting all the records of real frauds (while Rau ignores, hides the
military service fraud posted by his own gang members) is not only
hypocritical, but smacks of someone that knows he has been caught
lying, and is trying to obfuscate his fraud by posting volumes of
accounts of real frauds and other con men that also lied about
someone's military service, just the same as Tom Rau and Nigel Brooks
did!
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
"Mac the Medic" <markrealmil...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:js6tv55qo8b86dqlv...@4ax.com...
> Why do you cast so much damn hate on our newsgroup? Try posting on
> topic material once in a while as I and other old timers do. We
> realize you are fairly new to our newsgroup but that is no excuse.
>
> Macthemedic
>
>
>>I hope the Blumenthal Law is passed and has a retroactive clause in
>>it.
>>
>>Then maybe Dougie will get his just rewards.
>>
>>Jack G,
Mr. Jack G.
What just rewards are you suggesting I should receive based upon the
law you are referencing? Are you implying or stating I lied about my
military service? You know of course I asked Brooks to produce or
even name a single document that proves I lied about anything I ever
said as a statment of fact about my military service - and he is still
hiding from that challenge. Perhaps you have some information to back
up your fraud? No? If not Jack, then once again I must demand you
cease and desist the fraud, lies and libel about me, and cease and
desist the harassment.
BTW, you might find this interesting:
to his fraud each time. Anyone rational can see this pathetic excuse
I should also mention:
Speaking of Vietnam Vets:
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Doug Grant (Tm)
MAC
Even when evidence is BEFORE you, you do NOT "see" it.
Your willful ignorance is present only that you continue spewing forth
your accusations --- which you can NOT substantiate, but, as far as
you appear to be concerned, as long as you can cast your aspersions
and create disruption, that is fine with you.
Jeez, what a schleimel.
-Mac, the Medic
========================
On Sun, 30 May 2010 16:27:28 -0500, Mark
<markrealmil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I haven't seen or read any evidence that Nigel was ever in the service
>which explains that why when you talk military stuff he gets confused
>along with a few others who are known to troll with him.
>- "Mark"
==================================
Jack G.
> Even when evidence is BEFORE you, you do NOT "see" it.
> Your willful ignorance is present only that you continue spewing forth
> your accusations --- which you can NOT substantiate, but, as far as
> you appear to be concerned, as long as you can cast your aspersions
> and create disruption, that is fine with you.
> Jeez, what a schleimel.
> -Mac, the Medic
>
> ========================
> >I haven't seen or read any evidence that Nigel was ever in the service
> >which explains that why when you talk military stuff he gets confused
> >along with a few others who are known to troll with him.
> >- "Mark"
>
> ==================================
>
>
>
> >On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:11:05 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
>
> >>"Nigel Brooks" <nbro...@msn.com> wrote in message
> >>news:867ckk...@mid.individual.net...
>
> >>> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:4aa123ab-a20c-439c...@z15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>>> X-URL:
>
> - Show quoted text -
My kill file is getting full with only two real people and twenty scam
names all
from the same two trolls.
Jack G,
MAC
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Mr. Jack G.
>What just rewards are you suggesting I should receive based upon the
>law you are referencing? Are you implying or stating I lied about my
>military service?
SNIP
==========================
Your latest "warning" stated THIRTY DAYS.
That time-period has expired.
Your alleged attorneys should be proceeding.
Surely they have filed the paperwork by now ??
-Mac, the Medic
SteveL
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure everyone remembers one individual claiming to have been
>> "personally" involved in the battle for Hue and the Au Shaw Valley
>> (sic) who, when it was proven he could not have been present at
>> those battles - claimed that his personal involvement was gained
>> through his processing of transfers in the 25th Admin Co Officer
>> records section.
>
>Mr. Brooks, what you read on USENET needs to be explained by the
>author.
Why? You've been trying to claim for ages that an author's own words
cannot be used to accurately interpret what the author said; that one
must be a "mind-reader" to fully know what an author meant.
Surely this explanation has the same limitations of being rendering in
words.....
In fact Doug, why do you even post on Usenet? Unfortunately for you,
you have to use words to get your point across, and clearly words are
an inadaquate medium with which to discern your meaning (according to
your lame cop-out), since words and phrases of common understanding to
everyone else - such as Purple Heart and Butter Bar - appear to mean
something entirely different to you - or so you keep claiming....
> Only morons and con men will change the context of a USENET
>post and then use their own forgeries, fraud and out of context cons
>to smear and defame.
Indeed! So STOP DOING IT!
>
>If you were involved in a battle in any way you were thereby
>"involved" in it. If a person loaded bombs in a B-52 that dropped its
>load in one of those campaigns then the bomb loader was "involved."
You didn't say you were "involved". You said you were "in" B-52 raids.
Quote: "I have been in B-52 raids. I know first hand what they can do
to the minds and wills of soldiers."
Does a person loading bombs into a B-52 *really* know "first hand"
what they do to the minds and wills of soldiers, anymore than the
janitor or personnel clerk?
>If someone helped to select or send men into a battle of course he
>was "involved." I believe only a con man/hate merchant spewing
>outright fraud would try to change the definition of "Involved".
Won any more kook awards recently?
Nigel Brooks
"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4c-dnYid6-EAZp_R...@giganews.com...
The context of the following directly from Mr. Reiman is clear and
unambiguous:
"I will never forget the day when a little smiling girl of no more than 4 or
5 years old started walking towards me trying to give me a pack of
cigarettes. I was forced to shoot her"
It is not a forgery, nor is it out of context. They are his words. He will
of course attempt a tortured explanation of exactly what he meant by those
words, claim they were a construction to emphasize a point - but only a
moron would believe that.
Plain and simple - Reiman is a liar, absolutely nothing he writes can be
relied on to resemble the truth.
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
Howdy. How's the lawsuit coming along? Have you given up?
I'm still hopeful that you will do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
--
Each person has an individual responsibility to determine if his actions are moral, and
no government or army may ever take that responsibility away.
definition:
murder - the unjustifiable and intentional killing of people, NO EXCEPTIONS.
Nigel Brooks
news:MuudnfcqDOzHgZ7R...@supernews.com...
> I'm still hopeful that you will do the right thing.
>
> Sincerely,
> Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
I was hopeful that you had done the right thing also.
But
I guess you're not a member of the hemlock society.
So
Just GFYS instead
DGVREIMAN
Doug Grant (Tm)
<MAC ---NoSPAM...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo> wrote in message
news:asp506h5s0id2n03a...@4ax.com...
DGVREIMAN
news:js6tv55qo8b86dqlv...@4ax.com...
> Why do you cast so much damn hate on our newsgroup? Try posting on
> topic material once in a while as I and other old timers do. We
> realize you are fairly new to our newsgroup but that is no excuse.
>
> Macthemedic
>
>
>>I hope the Blumenthal Law is passed and has a retroactive clause in
>>it.
>>
>>Then maybe Dougie will get his just rewards.
>>
>>Jack G,
Mr. Jack G.
What just rewards are you suggesting I should receive based upon the
law you are referencing? Are you implying or stating I lied about my
I should also mention:
Speaking of Vietnam Vets:
Doug Grant (Tm)
<MAC ---NoSPAM...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo> wrote in message
news:roq506pqdnnbiltfp...@4ax.com...
Doug Says: Mr. McDonnell, I have just recently received the
information I needed from the Veterans Administration. I will respond
to them with a request for more information. Once everything is
complete, and I am advised to do so, I will file what I am advised to
file. Is this one of your taunts for me to file some litigation to
avoid answering the questions you snipped out above?
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
> I'm sure everyone remembers one individual claiming to have been
> "personally" involved in the battle for Hue and the Au Shaw Valley
> (sic) who, when it was proven he could not have been present at
> those battles - claimed that his personal involvement was gained
> through his processing of transfers in the 25th Admin Co Officer
> records section.
Mr. Brooks, what you read on USENET needs to be explained by the
author. Only morons and con men will change the context of a USENET
post and then use their own forgeries, fraud and out of context cons
to smear and defame.
If you were involved in a battle in any way you were thereby
"involved" in it. If a person loaded bombs in a B-52 that dropped its
load in one of those campaigns then the bomb loader was "involved."
If someone helped to select or send men into a battle of course he
was "involved." I believe only a con man/hate merchant spewing
outright fraud would try to change the definition of "Involved".
Here is the defination of Involved:
I should also mention:
Speaking of Vietnam Vets:
Doug Grant (Tm)
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:86ge3h...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:4c-dnYid6-EAZp_R...@giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 30 May 2010 14:11:05 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
>> <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm sure everyone remembers one individual claiming to have been
>>>> "personally" involved in the battle for Hue and the Au Shaw
>>>> Valley
>>>> (sic) who, when it was proven he could not have been present at
>>>> those battles - claimed that his personal involvement was gained
>>>> through his processing of transfers in the 25th Admin Co Officer
>>>> records section.
>>>
>>>Mr. Brooks, what you read on USENET needs to be explained by the
>>>author.
>>
>> Why? You've been trying to claim for ages that an author's own
>> words
>> cannot be used to accurately interpret what the author said; that
>> one
>> must be a "mind-reader" to fully know what an author meant.
Doug Says: Of course, that is why you need to ask the author his
meaning and context before you fraudulently create one out of bullshit
and a desire to use your own fraud to defame and smear.
>>
>> Surely this explanation has the same limitations of being rendering
>> in
>> words.....
Of course not. Words can have several different meanings and
contexts - even a 6th grader knows that fact.
>>
>> In fact Doug, why do you even post on Usenet? Unfortunately for
>> you,
>> you have to use words to get your point across, and clearly words
>> are
>> an inadaquate medium with which to discern your meaning (according
>> to
>> your lame cop-out), since words and phrases of common understanding
>> to
>> everyone else - such as Purple Heart and Butter Bar - appear to
>> mean
>> something entirely different to you - or so you keep claiming....
Doug Says: Purple Heart card means purple heart card. And anyone
that reads the exchange that mentions a Butter Bar knows I said I was
a NCO in Vietnam several times - and my use of the term meant I had to
be a platoon leader when none were available. Moreover, how the fuck
would you know what I meant or what others meant when they used the
same term? YOU were never even in the military. Moreover, I posted
where several other Veterans used the term Butter Bar in the same
manner as I did - why are you hiding from that confirmation of my
context - stupid - want tocon the readers - fraud? There can be no
other reasons.
>>
>>> Only morons and con men will change the context of a USENET
>>>post and then use their own forgeries, fraud and out of context
>>>cons
>>>to smear and defame.
>>
>> Indeed! So STOP DOING IT!
Doug Says: I suspect you are talking about Nigel Brooks and not me.
I change nothing.
>>
>
> The context of the following directly from Mr. Reiman is clear and
> unambiguous:
>
> "I will never forget the day when a little smiling girl of no more
> than 4 or 5 years old started walking towards me trying to give me a
> pack of cigarettes. I was forced to shoot her"
>
> It is not a forgery, nor is it out of context. They are his words.
> He will of course attempt a tortured explanation of exactly what he
> meant by those words, claim they were a construction to emphasize a
> point - but only a moron would believe that.
>
> Plain and simple - Reiman is a liar, absolutely nothing he writes
> can be relied on to resemble the truth.
Doug's Rebuttal: According to this clown when Jules Verne wrote that
he went to the moon and back he was a liar - as the plain reading of
his FICTION said so!! BWHAHAHAHAHAHA What a con man! When I was
asked about what I wrote I pointed out instantly that I was using
fiction to embellish a point. But then of course if we are going to
take everything that is written on USENET as the literal truth - then
I suppose we must ask how many people in Texas did Nigel Brooks
murder? He claimed he killed suspects in Texas, as the following post
clearly reflects:
http://tinyurl.com/299nrjf Brooks says "In Texas I shoot the SOB."
Brooks is clearly admitting that as a law enforcement person (custom
worker in fact) he murdered people that he believed were acting
strangely. I for one would like to know the names of the cases Brooks
worked on for the custom service and the names of all those involved
in those cases that were murdered.
What SteveL and Brooks wants all readers to believe is that everything
that is written on USENET is factual, meant as non-fiction and as a
statement of fact. These idiots are pretending they never heard of
fiction, or autobiographical fiction, nor read my THOUSANDS of
disclaimers in which I state, ALL of my posts, past, present and
further reserve the right to use any type of writing or means of
writing, fiction, non-fiction, whatever that I choose, and if you want
to know what I meant you simply need to ask - which con men and smear
merchants are afraid to do as then they cannot distort a fiction
article into a claimed non-fiction,or a quip into a statement of fact.
This is what con men and smear merchants do - but if that is the rule
they wish to live by they should wait until we get to court and they
are confronted with all they have posted or said to others about
things I am sure they will claim they did not mean...I have THOUSANDS
and counting.
We can start with Brooks boasting that he murdered people what working
in the US Custom service if they acted strangely to his perspective.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
I'm still hopeful that you will do the right thing.
Sincerely,
Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:86gov2...@mid.individual.net...
Doug Says: For some pathetic reason Nigel Brooks believes his
bluffing, huffing, puffing and stumbling legal advice bullshit will
deter me from what I know I must do to defend myself from his cons and
fraud - Brooks is fucking nuts. NOTHING stops me - ask anyone that
knows me. I have not even started to defend myself from this hate
gang.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
MAC
Well, as you have threatened lawsuits and claim your latest THIRTY
DAYS Warning has expired, you should be looking forward to
depositions.
-Mac, the Medic
===========================
MAC
something you have failed to do.
-Mac, the Medic
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
On Sun, 30 May 2010 19:34:04 -0500, Mark
<markrealmil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>All we have here is a non veterans ( Nigel) trying to smear a real
>veterans (Doug). He is using the same antics he has used on others
>just a different day. I thought Nigel was still on his honeymoon there
>in Texas.
>- "Mark"
>Please don't confuse me with the little Ward Attendant.
=======================================
MAC
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
When does your case go to Court?
-Mac, the Medic
MAC
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>ducking questions. Why? I will leave it up to the readers why.
>Doug Grant (Tm)
===========================
BACK in the year 2006, about 9th September, Doug Grant posted the
following:
QUOTE:
BTW, once section II and section III of my rebuttal are completed
and posted, (I needed to compile those rebuttals anyway for
court) I will no long be posting on this NG until after the court
cases are finished. There is a tremendous amount of research
involved in this rebuttal and it is taking me quite a bit of time
to compile
CLOSE QUOTES
I seem to remember him posting in 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.
I seem to remember him making further threats of further lawsuits.
And, I seem to remember his latest THIRTY DAY Warning finishing.
-Mac, the Medic
MAC
wrote:
>Pay no heed to this Jack G. character. He trolled over here with
>Dennis, Dino, and Nigel and his agenda is to disrupt and belittle real
>veterans. It is a shame what these non veterans will do out of
>jealousy.
>- "Mark"
--------------------------------------------------
You really are a failure at providing any proof of your accusations.
What a track-record !
It is understandable that, with such a record of failure you must
attack veterans who have served and have been in Vietnam.
OH, BY THE WAY, have you yet provided any PROOF that you were in
Vietnam ----- you know, as you try and demand from others.
-Mac, the Medic
SteveL
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:86ge3h...@mid.individual.net...
>>
>>
>
>Doug Says: Purple Heart card means purple heart card.
A Purple Heart is a Purple Heart.
"Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a
real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have
never fought in a war. About the only place you could have
received a purple heart was in Lebanon, and that was not a
shooting war, just a bombing due to the ineptitude of a gang of
Marine officers. In respect to deposing Saddam, I am the one
advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating cowering,
hiding, and doing nothing. It is pretty clear who the coward is
around here. BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not received in
combat is about as cowardly as it gets."
> And anyone
>that reads the exchange that mentions a Butter Bar knows I said I was
>a NCO in Vietnam several times - and my use of the term meant I had to
>be a platoon leader when none were available.
Let's talk context then.
Joe S said.
"The Brits have an adage: A lieutenant's mission is to show how
to die with dignity.
Regards,
Joe S. "
And you chimed in:
"Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
Butter Bars during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I
went to OCS and returned as a Butter Bar myself. Half of my
graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded.
Doug Grant (Tm)"
How does one go to Officer Candidate School as an NCO and "return" as
an NCO without further comment being required?? What possible
"context" could render that as a natural conclusion to your statement
above? Especially given the clear "officer" context you were replying
to?
Spare us.
> Moreover, how the fuck
>would you know what I meant
I can read.
> or what others meant when they used the
>same term?
What others?
> YOU were never even in the military.
You have to be in the military to know what Butter Bar means? Are you
that much of a moron?
> Moreover, I posted
>where several other Veterans used the term Butter Bar in the same
>manner as I did - why are you hiding from that confirmation of my
>context - stupid - want tocon the readers - fraud? There can be no
>other reasons.
The only "confirmation" you ever posted was a made up exchange with a
known alias of yours named "Profe" in a famous thread "COMMENTS NIGEL
BROOKS IS HIDING". At first you tried to pass it off as an exchange
present on the internet and easily available to anyone who wanted to
find it (hence the title of the thread, and Nigel's apparent
dishonesty in avoiding it). When various people chimed in to report
that there was no such exchange available on the internet you forgot
your initial context and claimed they were private emails!
BTW your behavior in this thread was the first time it became apparent
just how unbalanced you really were.
MAC
And your habit of desperately dodging the topic to come back with one
of your responses is patethic...
It appears you follow through with your threats of IDENTITY THEFT
just as quickly as Doug Grant.
-Mac, the Medic
=========================
On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:11:45 -0500, Mac The Medic
<macth...@NoSpamToday.net> wrote:
>In other words Doug, this Dennis character is scared of you. I don't
>think you have anything to worry about of someone who hides under a
>truck when courage is called. Take away his computer and he is just a
>miserable lonely old man who would run away from a hot piece of ass in
>a NY minute.
>- "Mark"
>not to be confused with the fake war hero. I use my real username as a
>signoff.
====================================
MAC
Well, then, as you qualify as a troll and a sock, your opinion means
even less.
And, contrary to your assertion, Nigel has proved that he is.
And that he was in Vietnam.
Which is far more than you have been able to do; in that, as so many
other things, it appears you fail.
-Mac, the Medic
********************************
On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:13:36 -0500, Mark <macth...@NoSpamToday.net>
wrote:
>Oh bullshit, he has never proved he is a veteran. Even his friends
>here say if he was in Vietnam he was a civilian so quit your lying.
>Doug, Dennis thinks if he backs up the claims of others that they will
>back up his phony war hero claims. To an extent he has been
>successful, however the opinions of trolls and socks don't mean a
>thing.
>- "Mark
==================================
MAC
You have some accusations, chose one of the four cities mentioned.
Pick one of the Veterans Service Offices.
At that office you present your accusations and provide the proof of
your accusations.
I'll have a chance to offer a rebuttal.
I'll then have the opportunity to let the VSO look at the documents
you claim are not real.
I'll have that VSO render a decision.
Pick your city.
Pick a couple of days.
Pick the VSO ---- I would recommend the DAV, the VFW, or, if there is
a Vietnam Vetereans of America, that is fine.
-Mac, the Medic
=============================
On Mon, 31 May 2010 00:15:42 -0500, Mark
<markrealmil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>When will you prove your many claims on here? When will you do
>anything but hide under a truck. That is what people around here want
>to know. I think Doug has a good case on you for online harassment
>which is a criminal offense in Oregon. I will be the first one to back
>him up if he needs it and I have more credibility than everyone you
>know combined son, and don't you ever forget that.
>- "Mark"
====================================
dino
---NoSPAM...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo says...
>
>OH, BY THE WAY, have you yet provided any PROOF that you were in
>Vietnam ----- you know, as you try and demand from others.
>-Mac, the Medic
Heh... He can't even be a believable Wannabe... Sadly, for him, there are no
Wannabe holidays...
Jack G.
> In article <roj6061ngfnlsiqbek1b16amlg2sc2l...@4ax.com>, MAC
> ---NoSPAM-Today-...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo says...
>
>
>
> >OH, BY THE WAY, have you yet provided any PROOF that you were in
> >Vietnam ----- you know, as you try and demand from others.
> >-Mac, the Medic
>
> Heh... He can't even be a believable Wannabe... Sadly, for him, there are no
> Wannabe holidays...
The only holidays the trolls get is when they can sleep late under
their bridge.
Jack G.
DGVREIMAN
> On Sun, 30 May 2010 21:19:30 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"
> <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>news:86ge3h...@mid.individual.net...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Doug Says: Purple Heart card means purple heart card.
>
> A Purple Heart is a Purple Heart.
Doug Says: No, by omitting the Card part, you are fraudulently
presenting a con and a false impression. Your own gang leader Nigel
Brooks even said he knew the following posts was not about medals.
Also you retrieved this post from my waste basket, and ignored the
fact it was removed. You also ignored the fact that within 90 days in
a conversation with the same person I clearly stated the topic then
and before was about VA issued purple heart cards. You also hid the
fact that I had posted dozens of times before and after that I did not
have a purple heart medal. You also ignored the fact that a First
Sergeant with 30 years of service reviewed this entire matter and
concluded the topic was about VA purple heart cards issued by the VA
and not medals. You also ignored the fact the VA confirmed in writing
that a Purple Heart Card existed and it was sometimes referred to in
that manner, as did the DAV.
But since you were never in the military and you go to military forums
to attack real veterans (pathetic) your deliberate and malicious fraud
in this respect is quite understandable - con man.
For the exposure of other fraud and lies from SteveL - see below:
>
> "Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart Card also, and I received mine
> in a
> real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have
> never fought in a war. About the only place you could have
> received a purple heart card was in Lebanon, and that was not a
> shooting war, just a bombing due to the ineptitude of a gang of
> Marine officers. In respect to deposing Saddam, I am the one
> advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating cowering,
> hiding, and doing nothing. It is pretty clear who the coward is
> around here. BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart card not received
> in
> combat is about as cowardly as it gets."
>
>
>> And anyone
>>that reads the exchange that mentions a Butter Bar knows I said I
>>was
>>a NCO in Vietnam several times - and my use of the term meant I had
>>to
>>be a platoon leader when none were available.
>
> Let's talk context then.
>
> Joe S said.
> "The Brits have an adage: A lieutenant's mission is to show how
> to die with dignity.
>
> Regards,
> Joe S. "
>
> And you chimed in:
Note that SteveL failed to mention what was said prior to this
particular exchange.
>
> "Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
> Butter Bars during my first tour in Vietnam then I
> went to OCS and returned as a Butter Bar myself. (As a SFC) Half of
> my
> graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)"
>
> How does one go to Officer Candidate School as an NCO and "return"
> as
> an NCO without further comment being required??
SteveL was never in the military. He apparently does not know there
are different levels of NCO. Further, he moved the "As a SFC" out of
its proper postion - I moved it back to where it belongs.
What possible
> "context" could render that as a natural conclusion to your
> statement
> above? Especially given the clear "officer" context you were
> replying
> to?
Doug Says: Dozens of people have referred to a NCO that is an acting
platoon leader as a Butter Bar. It was common. I heard it many
times.
>
> Spare us.
It is hard for me to spare you when you are such an obvious fraud and
liar. You were never in the military, you do not have a clue. You
certainly were not with me in the military, nor in my platoon. You
are a pathetic dreg wannabe that roves around Veteran forums so as to
spread fraud and lies about real veterans. You are pathetic but a
typical Nigel Brooks gang member - all fraud no substance.
>
>> Moreover, how the fuck
>>would you know what I meant
>
> I can read.
Apparently not.
>
>> or what others meant when they used the
>>same term?
>
> What others?
>
>> YOU were never even in the military.
>
> You have to be in the military to know what Butter Bar means? Are
> you
> that much of a moron?
Doug Says: You would need to be in the military to know how many
different ways that term was used. Moreover, there are those in the
military that said in 30 years they never even heard the term Butter
Bar before. So your claim that everyone automatically knows the many
different context's that term is used is beyond moronic - it is
drooling stupid.
>
>
>> Moreover, I posted
>>where several other Veterans used the term Butter Bar in the same
>>manner as I did - why are you hiding from that confirmation of my
>>context - stupid - want tocon the readers - fraud? There can be no
>>other reasons.
>
> The only "confirmation" you ever posted was a made up exchange with
> a
> known alias of yours named "Profe" in a famous thread "COMMENTS
> NIGEL
> BROOKS IS HIDING". At first you tried to pass it off as an exchange
> present on the internet and easily available to anyone who wanted to
> find it (hence the title of the thread, and Nigel's apparent
> dishonesty in avoiding it). When various people chimed in to report
> that there was no such exchange available on the internet you forgot
> your initial context and claimed they were private emails!
>
> BTW your behavior in this thread was the first time it became
> apparent
> just how unbalanced you really were.
>
Please see the post below to determine, easily, how much of a con man
and fraud this cyberstalking asshole SteveL is (who denies being
Steve Leyland)
Several people stated they used the Term Butter bar to designate a
Platoon Leader. One Veteran poster on this very forum stated several
times he used the Butter Bar term to identify a NCO platoon leader.
Obviously, Stevel has been caught in mid con yet again:
(Pay attention to Eris's post as just one example of SteveL fraud
below):
NIGEL BROOKS CAUGHT FORGING AGAIN - A REBUTTAL TO MORE NIGEL BROOKS
FRAUD
Path:
border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!postnews.google.com!news4.google.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: "Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.war.vietnam,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Can someone explain the logic behind
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 20:45:11 -0600
Lines: 91
Message-ID: <6vc81sF...@mid.individual.net>
References: <kNSdnXWCj5t-4_HU...@supernews.com>
<FD-A2C143.23...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>
<123e28e0-d5c4-4ba9...@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>
<6v5pv4F...@mid.individual.net>
<a5d32407-7a15-417a...@a39g2000prl.googlegroups.com>
<6v654oF...@mid.individual.net>
<kuljl.10349$pr6....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>
<6v6aibF...@mid.individual.net>
<m-GdneL95J4HLxLU...@giganews.com>
<4990cc1d....@news.webtv.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
format=flowed;
charset="iso-8859-1";
reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: individual.net
8JJv6Z3F+Z7yOxn4jUuBjwI6961iUkcUbSKR+L5IFw4i9N1Jk=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:uk/bCSmt0TtIRAoREcUAu81L6Hg=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 12.0.1606
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V12.0.1606
Bytes: 4930
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.atheism:5438864
alt.war.vietnam:740008 us.military.army:787550
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.war.vietnam,us.military.army
Sent: Monday, February 09, 2009 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: Can someone explain the logic behind
>
>
> "Sharky" <sh...@he11sgates.org> wrote in message
> news:4990cc1d....@news.webtv.com...
>> DGVREIMAN wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
>>>news:6v6aibF...@mid.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Nine Toes" <awrli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:kuljl.10349$pr6....@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>>>
>>>>> what I'd like to know is how you keep up with Eris....seems the
>>>>> stories change at every telling. and he's saying now he's
>>>>> going
>>>>> on Medicare next year? mebbe it's senility
>>>>
>>>> I'll never forgive him for validating Reiman's butter bar
>>>> explanation :-)
>>>>
>>>> Nigel Brooks
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, as you well know, YOU forged the terms
>>>("2nd
>>>Lieutenant') into my reference to a requirement for a SFC to lead a
>>>platoon because there was an absence of Butter Bars. Eris simply
>>>stated the obvious - you were lying then, and you are lying now.
>>>Would you like to see proof?
>>>
>>>Even when you are given time to ponder your obvious fraud, serial
>>>lying, and such without rebuttals, you just cannot help from
>>>attacking
>>>me. You need to find a cure for your pathetic obsession with me.
>>>I
>>>realize I am one of your victims that has taken the time to rebut
>>>your fraud and false accusations and thereby exposed you for what
>>>you
>>>are, a con man, fraud merchant and smear gang leader, but surely
>>>you
>>>can get over it? If you did not launch your smear and con campaign
>>>against me I would not be required to post my rebuttals to your
>>>serial
>>>lying and general dishonesty.
>>>
>>>Doug Grant (Tm)
>>
>> Bullshit! You lied about going to OCS and returning as a "Butter
>> Bar", which everyone knows is a nickname for a 2nd Lt. You were
>> attempting to bullshit someone into believing you hadn't been sent
>> packing from OCS, and that you became an officer. We now know
>> you're
>> greatest achievement was becoming a personnel sergeant.
>>
>> Get help Doug, you're not mentally stable.
>
> Gee - and I thought he'd crawled back under his rock.
>
> But the clear and unambiguous meaning of the post he made in
> response to one made by my good friend Joe Schlatter,( Col.USA
> retired) is......................
>
> Well ............ Clear and Unambiguous.
>
> "Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
> Butter Bars during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I
> went to OCS and returned as a Butter Bar myself. Half of my
> graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm) "
>
> http://tinyurl.com/pmjaz
>
> A review of Reiman's military records obtained under FOIA procedures
> revealed that:
>
> 1. His first tour of Vietnam began in early 1968.
Doug Says: More lies from Brooks.
> 2. He attended OCS in 1966
Doug Says: Of course.
> 3. His rank prior to attending OCS in 1966 was Specialist E-5 not
> SFC
Doug Says: Here Nigel Brooks proves he is a liar and a fraud, he knew
the SFC issue was simply an out-of-place typo, and when it is placed
in the right place in the paragraph the quip clearly states I was
talking about Platoon Leaders in respect to my Butter Bar reference.
Of course Brooks hides that fact, and he presents the quip with his
forged meaning and with a completely false context - yet his own
admission that I attended OCS as a Sp-5, and said so, and even said
that I made SSG E-6 AFTER I LEFT OCS ABOUT A DOZEN TIMES proves that
ol con man Brooks has, once again, caught himself in his own fraud and
deception.
> 4. He failed to graduate from OCS and was re-assigned that same
> year at grade E-5.
Brooks hides the fact that I was promoted to SSG E-6 immediately after
I was reassigned from the OCS school while I was waiting for another
OCS class. He hides that fact as he wants to give the fraudulent
impression I washed out of OCS.
> 5. His claim that "half his graduating class in OCS Ft Benning
> ended up dead or wounded" is a fabrication. He failed to graduate
> from any OCS class.
Doug Says: Stating what happened to my OCS graduating class is clearly
not a statement that I graduated - especially when I stated about a
dozen times I did not! BWHAHAHAHAHA. The two issues are not even
connected! Brooks has been caught in mid con yet again! I clearly
was talking about those officers that *graduated* which clearly DID
NOT include me - Brooks is distorting context and forging context and
meaning so as to defame and smear in true con man style.
> 6. The term "Butter Bar" is military vernacular for the
> Commissioned Officer Rank of 2nd Lieutenant. It is derived from the
> yellow or gold colored insignia of rank.
Doug Says: Butter Bar, as we see below, is a term used for MANY
DIFFERENT references, and has been used by many to reference several
different positions and types of officers. (See the links below for
proof). Nigel Brooks was a Sp-4 personnel clerk that has lied about
his service, was never in the Regular Army, and is a known fraud and
smear merchant, and certainly is NOT an expert on US Army vernacular.
Brook's claim that "Butter Bar" was "exclusively" used to mean 2nd
Lieutenant is a flagrant lie - as the following links from real
soldiers prove.
> 7. His records are clear and unambiguous that he was never an
> Commissioned Officer.
Doug Says: Considering I never said I was a commissioned officer,
then I should reply that Mr. Brooks records are clear and unambiguous
that he never made the rank of Field Marshall either - both
statements have the same relevancy - and this is regardless of the
fact Nigel Brooks said he won two Victoria Crosses in Vietnam. Nigel
Brooks is presenting his con man BS as if I did say something I did
not, so he can use more con's and fraud to smear me about something he
knows I never said. Typical con man and typical Nigel Brooks style.
>
> As stated - the clear and unambiguous meaning of his post is clear
> and unambiguous. To believe any other explanation would require one
> to abandon common sense.
>
> Nigel Brooks
Doug Says: Common sense is to believe the intent of the author, and
not to try to exploit and use fraud and lies to misrepresent a simple
typo - and this is especially true when dozens of my posts prove
irrefutably that I said was promoted to SSG E-6 within eight days
after I LEFT OCS - and we all know that a SFC comes AFTER a SSG E-6 -
all of us except of course the net smear merchant and con man Nigel
Brooks.
NIGEL BROOKS CAUGHT FORGING AGAIN - A REBUTTAL TO MORE NIGEL BROOKS
FRAUD
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an
editorial on contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in
this article represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical
fact, nor is about, directed toward or against any particular person -
other than those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being
posted for entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post
personally annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please
notify me of your specific reasons for annoyance via email at
legal...@comcast.net. If we find your detailed objections
reasonable (considering the "reasonable person" doctrine and case law)
we will then remove this post, or the offending passages contained
therein, from the Google archive, publicly apologize and retract. My
intent is to entertain, and to present articles to USENET readers
prior to publication to determine interest, and not to annoy, abuse,
humiliate, or in any way cause anyone emotional harm by posting on
USENET or elsewhere. Please note that defending myself from harassment
and obloquy with rebuttal posts has been deemed a "lawful and
legitimate" publication by my legal counsel. If I am not attacked,
libeled, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles not
interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web
site or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
opportunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
archive).
SMEAR MERCHANT DISCLAIMER TWO: Considering the typical ridiculous,
absurd and obviously false claims about my military service that
originates from the crackpot smear and con gang that operates on
alt.war.Vietnam, I also hereby certify and attest this article is NOT
a secret coded message that only gang members can decode with their
secret Federal Agent/Sp4 draftee/former Junior Reserve Officer/ midget
decoder and mind reading rings.
This means the Brownie crackpots' inevitable accusations and howls
that this article is really me claiming in a special soothsaying code
(a code only crackpots et al smear gang can only read of course which
involves their typical claim the American Heritage Dictionary's
definitions of simple terms, such as "we" "estimated" "involved"
"retired from" and "not representing any biographical claim" are all
incorrect, and only their "special interpretations of the English
language can apply to all English terms I use, and of course the gang's
standard nonsensical mind reading and soothsaying claims that (1) I
was a CIA cross border assassin that sniper killed Ho Chi Minh,
HOORAH - (2) that I personally killed 1803 enemy soldiers in Vietnam
and then feasted on their bodies (burp) (3) that I was a secret member
of the Mi Lai massacre, (let god sort them out) that I hunted down and
murdered unarmed Priests (take that choir boy) (4) that I was trained
by the Martian Army on Mars, and I have green blood, and retractable
fangs (slurp), (5) that the movie "Rambo" was copied after my deeds in
Vietnam and I still live in caves in the northwest (6) and best of
all, I went to the Carlise War College to study WWII tactics even
before I was born!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHHA.
Needless to say, the smear gang misrepresentations of my past posts
are of course, not true.
I have posted dozens of times on USENET that I will not post
autobiographical facts about my life on USENET in any detail. Only a
quip now and then. And, if anyone wants to know the true facts, or a
clarification of any quip, or more information and details about an
issue which are clearly missing in my quips they must first contact
me via email, identify themselves, and then I will determine if I want
to exchange such personal information with them.
Although the above is my standing offer, I should mention that NOT ONE
member of the gang has ever contacted me directly over any one of my
posts. It is clear the gang does not want to know about obvious
typos, errors, and occasional ambiguities, nor clarifications, nor
corrections, nor do they even want verification whether I was the
actual author of the post in question.
As experts on Investigations and the US Military have noted, the gang
leaders and their members clearly want to avoid the truth whenever it
contradicts their contrived and conspired defaming parsing and
fraudulent misrepresentations and distortions of what I have written
in the past, or contradicts their lies and fraud in respect to what is
and is not truly contained in my military records, and of course,
their fraudulent use of USENET posts they know others have written to
use to smear me, defame me, hold me up to public ridicule, stalk me,
and otherwise further their years' long demonizing and vilification
campaign they have been regularly waging against me.
In short, the gang does not want to know the truth, and they are
desperate to stop me from defending myself as they know my truthful
rebuttals, which they cannot defend as they know what I am posting is
true, reveals them for what they really are.
The gangs lies and fraud border on the pathological, and include the
gang' preposterous and goofy fraud that (7) a Purple Heart VA card is
the same as a Purple Heart Medal (I have posted on USENET dozens of
times I did not receive a Purple Heart Medal) (8) Nor that removing
hundreds of typos, errors, misstatements made by typists and I found
so far in about thirty-five THOUSAND extemporaneous posts under
accounts I used, and then replacing the errors with the true intended
context and meaning by the author is somehow "sinister" and the
original discarded post was the correct intended post and the
corrected version is false! (Giggle).
Such glaring preposterous crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims
about me are, as usual, blatantly false and equally ridiculous. (Ask
the gang leaders for proof of their claims the next time they make
such ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for their rocks or produce
their own forgeries, or perhaps typos, errors and such that have long
been detected and discarded in my waste basket they have dug out of
that trash). And no, regardless of forgeries and discarded posts found
in my waste basket that were thrown there because of an error or
typist misstatement by one of our typist's, I have posted about two
dozen times in the past that my time in South America was spent (other
than an assignment and short visit to Southern Command after I left
Vietnam) exclusively as a Civilian working for Montana Western Oil and
Gas or PCA, which evidence was scanned and posted years ago.)
Also, in response to the smear gang's et al repeated and convenient
outright lie and fraud that I never said that others were using the
same accounts to post on USENET as I did until the smear gang leaders
started their fraud, con and smear campaign against me and thereby
forced me to post on this newsgroup to defend myself, please see the
following proof that of course the gang leaders et al have been caught
lying again:
http://tinyurl.com/7kfaqz Experts on Smear Gangs reveal what the
Nigel Brooks con and smear gang is all about.
http://tinyurl.com/6d4aay TYPISTS' GALORE POST proves there were about
71 previous posts prior to the gang's glaring lie that I never
mentioned others posting under the same accounts I used until after
the gang leaders started to use a few typos, errors and post fragments
written by many different people, years apart, never written on any
military forum, deceptively spliced together with forged words added
into or subtracted from the hodgepodge of different context post
fragments so as to fraudulently alter their meaning or context.
End Disclaimer - Rebuttal Begins below:
NIGEL BROOKS CAUGHT FORGING AGAIN
Doug Says: I have posted about a dozen or so times that other US Army
personnel have referred to the term Butter Bar as a Platoon Leader.
Brooks was told immediately the SFC note in the quip he is forging was
simply out of place, (Brooks' idiotically proves he is lying above by
noting that I was a not a SFC when I went to OCS). However, so as to
completely fraudulently misrepresent what I had previously told Brooks
I had meant in this quip (Brooks is exploiting a typo for his
fraudulent purposes as the following post clearly proves) Brooks
FORGED - YES "FORGED" the terms "(2nd Lieutenant)" into my post so as
to completely change the quip into a context he already knew was
completely false and fraudulent so he could then continue his con game
and smear tactics.
The clear and unambiguous meaning of the post, as explained by the
author, which the entire post reflects, is about NCO's that were
required to perform the duties of Platoon Leaders due to an absence of
Lieutenants. Brooks knew this as he asked me what I meant, and AFTER
I told him that was my meaning he then FORGED the terms (2nd
Lieutenant) into my post thereby knowingly, maliciously and
fraudulently changing the true context of the quip.
See below for all those other real Vets (people that actually served
in the Regular Army - unlike Brooks that referred to a Platoon Leader
as a Butter Bar) - and meanwhile check out all the fraud and other
forgeries Nigel Brooks has been posting about me for years.
http://tinyurl.com/cdox5m Here is a short list of Nigel Brook's more
recent forgeries, and his laughable claim that he "never forged
anything in his life." Not only has Brooks been caught lying and
conning about his military service, he has been caught lying about
other people's military records. The man is clearly a con man and a
smear merchant.
BROOK BUTTER BAR FORGERY EXPOSED -REBUTTAL
1. See my post: http://tinyurl.com/47wgm3 POW'S LEFT BEHIND IN VIETNAM
- PROOF -REBUTTAL
REBUTTAL to Nigel Brooks fraud and false accusations in respect to
this issue.
(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
of my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an
editorial on contemporary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in
this article represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical
fact, nor is about, directed toward or against any particular person -
other than those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being
posted for entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post
personally annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please
notify me of
your specific reasons for annoyance via email at
legalco...@comcast.net. If we find your detailed objections reasonable
(considering the "reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will
then remove this post, or the offending passages contained therein,
from the Google archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is
to entertain, and to present articles to USENET readers prior to
publication to determine interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate,
or in any way cause anyone emotional harm by posting on USENET or
elsewhere. Please note that defending myself from harassment and
obloquy with rebuttal posts has been deemed a "lawful and legitimate"
publication by my legal counsel. If I am not attacked, defamed or
harassed, or my copyrighted articles not interrupted nor infringed
upon, I clearly do not have a reason to respond with a rebuttal.
Please also note that I intend to notify any and all ISP's and web
hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web site or other similar
entity about me after I give the offender an opportunity to retract,
apologize and remove said post from the Google archive).
IN ADDITION, considering the typical ridiculous, absurd and obviously
false claims about my military service that originates from the smear
merchant crackpot gang, I also hereby certify and attest this article
is NOT a secret coded message that only smear gang members such as the
anonymous cyberstalker SteveL and others can decode with his secret
Federal Agent midget decoder and mind reading ring. This means all
gang members inevitable claims that this article is me really claiming
in a soothsaying code (a code crackpots et al gang members can only
read of course which involves the standard nonsensical gang leader
mind reading claims) that (1) I was a CIA cross border assassin that
sniper killed Ho Chi Minh, HOORAH - (2) that I personally killed 1803
enemy soldiers in Vietnam and then feasted on their bodies (burp) (3)
that I was a secret member of the Mi Lai massacre, (let god sort them
out) that I hunted down and murdered unarmed Priests (take that choir
boy) (4) that I was trained by the Martian Army on Mars, and I have
green blood, and retractable fangs (slurp), (5) that the movie "Rambo"
was copied after my deeds in Vietnam and I still live in caves in the
northwest (6) and best of all, I went to the Carlise War College to
study WWII tactics even before I was born!!!! BWHAHAHAHAHHA. Such
preposterous crackpot et al smear and fraud gang claims about me
are, as usual, blatantly false
and equally ridiculous. (Ask them for proof of their claims the
next time they make such ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for
their rocks). Also, note that all of the smear gang's accusations
about me have been (or will be) submitted to a team of independent
and highly qualified investigators, experts on military issues, and
the law. I have already seen some of their written conclusions, and
so far all of the experts agree with me, and some believe I am being
smeared and defamed with fraud, false accusations and obloquy, and two
have recommended I take immediate legal action against members of this
smear gang that conspires together to defame and smear me on a
repeated and regular basis. I will publish all of their opinions about
the gang's accusations when all of their false accusations,
forgeries, fraud, false military record representations, and general
obloquy have been investigated and opined upon by experts).
Re my previous post:
http://tinyurl.com/3nm8yr An Enormous Crime.
In a direct, flagrant and deliberate infringement on one of my
copyrighted articles that was about POWS' left in Vietnam and had
nothing to do with Nigel Brooks, Mr. Brooks' has once against
distorted the facts with fraud and false accusations.
Sp4 Brooks' not only infringed on my copyright, he added his usual
spiteful fraud and forgery about my Butter Bar reference when I
sarcastically mentioned I was forced to be a Platoon Leader when
there was an absence of Lieutenants. Note this long ago exchange
included a single typo that Brooks of course found during one of his
back searches of posts coming out of one of the accounts I used.
Brooks' back searches all of my posts searching for typos and such so
he can use fraud and false distorted interpretations of all typos
(except his and his gang members of course) to smear, defame, defraud,
lie about and falsely and fraudulently portray in a context and
meaning that was not intended by me nor the original author. (A.k.a.
"The Nigel Brooks' Flim Flam").
It is not so much that Brooks has dredged up his own forgery about
something I said in the past, that practice is standard Nigel Brooks
and his fraud and false accusations are becoming legendary. (Brooks
probably holds the world Internet record for web sites forced down by
web managers due to defamation or lies or fraud or abuse or false
accusations or all five reasons).
Yet when Brooks laces his half-baked and generally goofy self-serving
opinions with outright fraud about me because I dared to present
something that he does not want Vietnam Vets to read - I believe
that unethical act goes beyond his typical fraud, copyright
violations, false accusations, serial lying, deceptions, distortions,
preposterous mind reading claims, outright forgeries, and traducement
posts about me and others.
Nigel Brooks Butter Bar Fraud and Forgeries Exposed
Brooks Said:
> Mr. Reiman has actually made his acquaintance also - for during
> December > 2003, in a thread entitled "Military Experts on Fox &
> CNN" the former Deputy > Director of the Defense POW-MIA office said
> this:
> "As an old retired officer whose young ass was saved by his platoon
> sergeant
> and his first sefeant mor than one, Amen. The Brits have an adage: A
> lieutenants mission is to show how to die with dignity"
> Mr. Reiman responded:
> "Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
> Butter
> Bars during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I went to OCS
> and
> returned as a Butter Bar myself. Half of my graduating class in OCS
> Ft.
> Benning ended up dead of wounded."
Doug Says: Of course Brooks is NOT presenting the original
copyrighted response I made to Joe in its correct order. Brooks is
deliberately using a cut and paste that contains a known typo in the
above post fragment which has already been corrected about a dozen
times, and the original War Story article version and several other
posts I posted long ago proves the above post fragment contains a key
error in respect to the placement of the (as a SFC). (When you are
using typists that do not know anything about the US Military we
noticed lots of errors were made in respect to military comments or
issues).
Regardless of Brooks' knowledge of the glaring typo (which he has
acknowledged several times) he still deliberately and fraudulently
uses that same known typo in his repeated defamation posts about me,
while hiding from and ignoring the corrected passage which was
originally written and which is evidenced by our Library of
Congress. (The copyrighted version did not contain the typist's error
and that copyright was filed long before Brooks even started his smear
campaign against me).
Correcting Typos and Errors
If we find a typist error or typo or something that can be
fraudulently exploited due to any ambiguity, or an outright forgery
from Brooks or any of his gang members, we remove it from the Google
archive and replace the post with the typo, error or ambiguity
corrected.
Everyone knows only the original author can know the true intent and
meaning of anything he might write, and Nigel Brooks is soooooo stupid
I doubt if he even knows the true meaning of what *he* writes not to
mention anyone else. Brooks' has ZERO background in literary reviews
or critiques, and his background is more attuned to fraud, forgeries,
flim flam, serial lying and false accusations, so we can all see the
kind of person I am being forced to deal with.
Not that it is not easy to expose and rebut Nigel Brooks and his gang's
fraud and traducements contained in all of their posts about
me, it just is time consuming. Yet we have a full time typist at work
(a volunteer working pro bono) and we have just about covered all of
Nigel Brooks fraud and lies he has posted about me with either
rebuttals already posted, or rebuttals pending. Soon these rebuttals
will also be supported with the opinions of genuine experts on the
law, investigation and the US Military as well as the detailed facts
presented in them.
To further their typical fraud and false accusations, Nigel Brooks and
his gang like to dig discarded posts out of my waste basket that were
discarded due to error or typo, while ignoring the corrected post that
is replaced on USENET without the error. They spend hours and hours
back searching posts that were posted under one of the accounts I used
pathetically wasting their time searching for any typo, any error they
can forge and distort into something defaming or they can use to
continue their cyberstalking and harassment against me.
Out of the approximately 35,000 posts on USENET posted by many under
the account names I also used, so far they have found about five or
six key typos or errors they can fraudulently exploit or forge into
something that appears on the surface defaming. Yet on closer
inspection simply proves that Nigel Brooks and his gang are nothing
more than forgers that splice together post fragments years apart, and
then add or subtract their own words so as to make the post fragments
say something entirely different from what the original author wanted
to say or convey to the readers.
INTENT OF THE AUTHOR IGNORED BY THE BROOKS GANG
*Intent* of the author is the key, and every expert I have spoken with
has confirmed the obvious and known fact that only the original author
can determine the true context and meaning of anything he has
written. Others can question and ask his meaning if it could be
ambiguous of course, but Brooks and Rau and gang does not ask. They
simply forge the post fragments they find into something defaming
they want it to mean so they can then use their own forgeries for the
purpose of defaming their targeted smear and con victim.
Brooks' attempts to con the readers into believing he can read minds,
and he and only he can interpret all of the literary works in the
world, and he claims he even knows more about context and intent than
the original author. Add that to his Sp4 Draftee background yet based
upon that pathetic amount of service and rank he also claims he is an
expert on the US Military and some how, (mind reading or soothsaying
or a cyrstal ball - take your pick) he knows what every solider did or
did not do in his military service, and what you clearly are dealing
with in Nigel Brooks is a self delusional crackpot.
Here is some detailed information about Mr. Brooks propensity to
falsely interpret post fragments from other authors for the obvious
and deliberate purpose to defame the original author:
http://tinyurl.com/4z9o7m BROOKS SPIN AND FRAUD REVEALED -REBUTTAL
Brooks' knows the (as a SFC) is out of place in the above false and
incorrect version of my response to Joe. I was clearly referencing
myself as a "Platoon Sergeant" that had to take over a platoon due to
the absence of a Lieutenant, which we can all see was the topic of
the Joe's comment I was responding to. Note that I had already said
I was a NCO in this post, and the post topic was all about NCO's not
2nd Lieutenants, and that is why Brooks hides the entire post. But we
can all see Joe's reference to a Platoon Sergeant saving his ass,
which prompted my reply:
> "Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
> Butter
> Bars during my first tour in Vietnam then I went to OCS and
> returned as a Butter Bar myself (as a SFC). Half of my graduating
> class in OCS Ft.
> Benning ended up dead of wounded."
Doug Says: It is very easy to prove the (as a SFC) typo was out of
place in the sentence. The correct positioning of the (as a SFC)
explains clearly that I was talking about performing the duties of a
Butter Bar as a SFC E-7 Platoon Sergeant, and here is the proof the
SFC E-7 typo was in fact an original typo and the statement above is
the correct one. First let's examine Brooks glaring typo version:
"Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
Butter
> Bars during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I went to OCS
> and
> returned as a Butter Bar myself."
1. I was promoted to SSG E-6 special orders 145, eight days after I
arrived in France from the OCS school in Ft. Benning. I was not
promoted to SFC E-7 until December 1968 in Vietnam. According to
Brooks' typo version below I would be ridiculously claiming I was a
SFC E-7 *before* I went to Vietnam, and then after Vietnam I went to
OCS - which is of course ass backwards to everything else I have ever
said about my service.
http://tinyurl.com/4jkvjn July 29, 2006 I had said many times
previously that I made SFC E-7 long after I left OCS, and in fact had
posted several times that I was promoted to SSG E-6 and offered a very
unusual assignment in France by the OCS School after I left OCS. (How
could I be a SFC E-7 before I went to OCS if I was promoted to SSG E-6
only after I left OCS? This is typical of the BS Brooks distortions of
the facts).
http://tinyurl.com/42ew8o July 28, 2006 Note the Above post proves
that Dai Uy lied about me "washing out of OCS" and further lied about
my rank in Vietnam.
1. Then Nigel Brooks corrected his own gang member and confirmed that
I
was promoted to SFC E-7 on December 1968 -"
http://tinyurl.com/4vara2
SECTION CHARLIE PART II CAN BE FOUND AT THIS URL:
Nigel Brooks lie that I was never a Platoon Sergeant, his own Google
archived posts proves he is
lying and using fraudulent misrepresentations in this regard. Brooks
is also caught lying about my OCS assignments and my assignments after
OCS once again.. Included is Brook's confession (Google archived post
from Brooks) that contrary to his previous claims he now confesses he
"really does not know who wrote or posted the articles and forgeries
he has been attributing to me." (Evidence Included). Brooks is again
caught using fraudulent statements in respect to my assignments to
France and immediate promotion to SSG E-6.
1. http://tinyurl.com/msqv2 (Section Charlie).
SECTION DELTA PART II CAN BE FOUND AT THIS URL: In this section Nigel
Brook's is caught lying not only about his claims that I have a bad
discharge, but also lying about my OCS assignments, and my assignments
and promotion immediately after OCS. I include scanned orders proving
Nigel Brooks and his gang members are using lies and fraud to defame
me. (Evidence included). (Brooks also lies about my MOS duties, and my
duties outside of my MOS as well).
http://tinyurl.com/hw282 (Section Delta).
Doug Says: At last count there were 191 previous posts in which I said
I was promoted to SSG E-6 AFTER I left OCS, and I was promoted to SFC
E-7 while I was in Vietnam. So obviously the version with the typo
Brooks is presenting is clearly in error:
"Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
Butter
> Bars during my first tour in Vietnam (as a SFC) then I went to OCS
> and
> returned as a Butter Bar myself."
the correct version is as follows:
"Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
Butter
> Bars during my first tour in Vietnam then I went to OCS and >
> returned as a Butter Bar myself (as a SFC)."
Brooks' knows his typo version he dug out of my waste basket is
completely false, misleading and fraudulent. Brooks' has even
admitted that I was not promoted to SFC E-7 until long after I left
OCS and was stationed in Vietnam. So by Brooks own mouth he has
admitted to posting a known forgery and false representation based
upon his own forgery - yet again. Whew! What a fraud merchant this
Nigel Brooks is!
Now we shall prove that Brooks actually FORGED AND INSERTED the terms
(2nd Lieutenant) into my post after the Butter Bar term so as to
deliberately forge and lie about my intent and meaning of the post
fragment in question:
Here is the post that proves Mr. Brooks forged the terms (2nd
Lieutenant) into my post AFTER I told him I was sarcastically
referencing a Platoon Leader that was a Platoon Sergeant (SFC ) that
had to take over due to an absence of commissioned officers.
http://tinyurl.com/3em5ny "Your claim that you never posted a forgery
of any kind in respect to your smear campaign against me is
preposterous and represents outright fraud - I can and will produce
dozens of out-of-context forgeries about me posted by you. One of your
first forgeries was adding the terms "2nd Lieutenant" in Paranthias
after my Butter Bar phrase although I specifically told you and you
acknowledged that my context and meaning of "Butter Bar" was that of a
"Platoon Leader that was a SFC E-7" and NOT a 2nd Lieutenant."
http://tinyurl.com/4esrnk April 27
.http://tinyurl.com/64kkux Nigel Brooks Butter Bar forgery, where he
ADDED the terms (2nd Lieutenant) into the narrative of my post so as
to change the context of the post fragment he used to
fraudulentlyclaim I was claiming to be a 2nd Lieutenant in Vietnam
"Note that Brooks forged my post and added the terms "(2nd
Lieutenant)" even *after* I told him I was referencing a Platoon
Leader that was a SFC in absence of a commissioned officer - so much
for "honesty" in the Brooks gang)."
Nigel Brooks goes on with his fraud:
> "Joe" is of course Joe Schlatter a former frequent poster to
> alt.war.vietnam.
> The term "Butter Bar" is military slang used to identify the lowest
> commission officer rank of pay grade O-1. It's origin is derived
> from the
> insignia of rank worn by the individual, a yellow or gold colored
> single
> bar - hence the term "Butter Bar".
Nigel Brooks has admitted the term Butter Bar can mean many other
things other than just a 2nd lieutenant, and of course anyone in the
US Army knows that fact. Yes I have heard "Butter Bar" mean a dumb
ass 2nd Lieutenant, but I have also heard it used to denote a Platoon
Leader, green officer, OCS graduate, stupid officer, shaky officer,
contemptible officer, asshole officer, and even a cowardly officer. I
used it in the context to denote the common event when a Platoon
Leader was absent from his platoon and therefore the SFC (platoon
sergeant) had to become the "butter bar" platoon leader as well as the
platoon sergeant.
2. As soon as Brooks asked me what I meant about the Butter Bar post
fragment, and in the same post admitted I could not be talking about a
2nd Lieutenant specifically, I replied with precisely what my context
and meaning was and noted the typo. However, that response infuriated
Brooks because he knew he could no longer use his fraud to defame me,
so what did Brooks do? Of course ol Nigel ADDED the terms "(2nd
Lieutenant)" to my post immediately after my use of the terms' Butter
Bar so as to forge my post and convey a meaning that he knew I did not
intend and in fact had already told him I did not intend.
3. As soon as Brooks FORGED the terms (2nd Lieutenant) into my post
so he could make it mean what he had been saying it meant, the Brooks
gang picked up Brooks' outright forgery and posted his forgery
hundreds of times over the Internet associated with the fraudulent
claim that I had claimed to be a 2nd Lieutenant while I was in Vietnam
- which of course is a complete lie that is based upon Nigel Brooks
outright forgery and false representation of my post and my intent.
4. But this is how Nigel Brooks operates. Fraud, forgeries, lies,
smears, defamation, conning the readers, false associations, false
representations of his past service with the Custom Service to bolster
his out right fraud and forgeries designed to smear and defame, and
also his production of ringers and other "anonymous experts or self-
acclaimed Law Enforcement types" to falsely support and agree with
Brooks obvious fraud, and his gang members' lies and forgeries of what
they falsely claim I said in the past.
I have seen the Brooks' gang impersonate all kinds of people,
including me, Doctors and even a General so as to add false and
completely fraudulent credibility to their lies and false
accusations. When dealing with Nigel Brooks and gang you must always
remember you are dealing with unethical and dishonest people when it
comes to posting on USENET. They lie, and lie, and lie, and forge,
and impersonate, and that is what smear gangs do, and the Nigel Brooks
smear gang is legendary in its use of outright fraud and false
accusations.
Some Other Evidence That Butter Bar Is Used to Mean Platoon Leader
http://tinyurl.com/3h9oxv Another AWV poster (Eris) uses the Butter
Bar name to denote a Platoon Sergeant that also was forced into the
position of Platoon Leader the same as I did. Brooks said if anyone
else confirmed the usage the same as I did he would apologize and
retract his fraud. I am still waiting for his apology. I have often
seen Brooks; demand evidence he is wrong with a claim he would
retract or apologize for his fraud if that evidence is presented, but
in true Flim Flam style, when the evidence comes in proving he is
wrong he ducks his offer and pretends he never said it. Like I said,
this guy has the ethics of a Saigon Whore. (I wonder where he
learned to be so unethical?)
http://tinyurl.com/4fbmww Here is another email I received from a
person that confirms others in the 25th Infantry division also heard
the term Butter Bar used to denote a Platoon Leader. I sent that
email to CyberstalkerWebNames on July 28, 2006.
I feel confident that any rational and responsible expert on the law
and on the US Military will agree that Nigel Brooks and his smear
gang et al are perhaps one of the most (if not the most) dishonest
and fraudulent smear merchant gangs' operating on the Web. (This of
course does not include ringers, fake names, and impersonators
planted on the Newsgroup by the smear gang to fraudulently bolster
credibility for their outright fraud. No real name, no credentials,
then you can bet it is all gang bullshit).
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
tankfixer
Toda...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo says...
They arraigned Doug already ?
tankfixer
Toda...@NoSpamToday-abc.zoo says...
>
> <dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Mr. Jack G.
> >What just rewards are you suggesting I should receive based upon the
> >law you are referencing? Are you implying or stating I lied about my
> >military service?
> SNIP
> ==========================
> Your latest "warning" stated THIRTY DAYS.
Time moves slower in RiemanWorld
> That time-period has expired.
Don't worry, he will claim it is in the works.
> Your alleged attorneys should be proceeding.
They did procedd. They procedded on to actual cases that had merit.
> Surely they have filed the paperwork by now ??
They "filed" his paperwork in the circular file before the door closed
behind Doug..
SteveL
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snip Doug's hilarious edit job>
>>> And anyone
>>>that reads the exchange that mentions a Butter Bar knows I said I
>>>was
>>>a NCO in Vietnam several times - and my use of the term meant I had
>>>to
>>>be a platoon leader when none were available.
>>
>> Let's talk context then.
>>
>> Joe S said.
>> "The Brits have an adage: A lieutenant's mission is to show how
>> to die with dignity.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Joe S. "
>>
>> And you chimed in:
>
>Note that SteveL failed to mention what was said prior to this
>particular exchange.
Well you omitted it too. Here's the entire thead for any interested
party to pore over.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.congress/browse_thread/thread/b2d0152eb0c11a88/ee57bd9e882341c0?#ee57bd9e882341c0
or
http://tinyurl.com/2vbyynj
>>
>> "Joe, the sad truth is the Brits are right. I went through three
>> Butter Bars during my first tour in Vietnam then I
>> went to OCS and returned as a Butter Bar myself. (As a SFC) Half of
>> my
>> graduating class in OCS Ft. Benning ended up dead or wounded.
>>
>> Doug Grant (Tm)"
>>
>> How does one go to Officer Candidate School as an NCO and "return"
>> as
>> an NCO without further comment being required??
>
>SteveL was never in the military. He apparently does not know there
>are different levels of NCO. Further, he moved the "As a SFC" out of
>its proper postion - I moved it back to where it belongs.
Here's the actual post on Google Doug. Please say how I managed to
move "as an SFC" from its "proper place". Or are you once again going
to claim that the premier archive of Usenet has been hacked!
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.congress/msg/27feae319d3c592d
Snip 900 lines of babbling diatribe.
tankfixer
markrealmil...@hotmail.com says...
>
> No Dennis got 30 day sentence but was released at 21 days for good
> behavior.
Like you can prove that....
>
> - Mac, the medic
tankfixer
macth...@NoSpamToday.net says...
>
> dont have to every real veteran knows it
Figured you got nothing..
So did you report me yet ?
I wore a uniform all day....
>
> Mac, the medic
SteveL
<dgvr...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Doug Says: For some pathetic reason Nigel Brooks believes his
>bluffing, huffing, puffing and stumbling legal advice bullshit
I'll take the legal opinion of someone with 20+ years experience as a
criminal investigator over that of a layman who doesn't understand the
concept of evidence any day.
Doug. You think referring to previous examples of yourself making an
an accusation are "evidence" in support of a current accusation!
That's worse than stupid. It's deranged.
> will
>deter me from what I know I must do to defend myself from his cons and
>fraud - Brooks is fucking nuts.
To my knowledge Nigel has never won even won a kook award. You are up
in double figures. And you display obvious cognitive defects - re
concept of evidence.
> NOTHING stops me - ask anyone that
>knows me.
Nobody doubts that you are insanely stubborn.
> I have not even started to defend myself from this hate
>gang.
You haven't started *anything* Doug. 5 years of lawsuit threats and
you've still started nothing!