BROOKS SECRET SQUIRREL CODE BOOK -REBUTTAL
DGVREIMAN
BROOKS SECRET SQUIRREL CODE BOOK -REBUTTAL
1. (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 (nor in any of my past posts) 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 1. 1.
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
wrong and only their "special interpretations of the English language
can apply to all English terms, and the gang's standard nonsensical
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 are of
course, not true. No more than 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 and the post the gang tries to distort was clearly talking about
cards as the last sentence proves) (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 of course this includes the fact I have received
notice from Google stating that several of the posts the gang has used
to defame me "did not originate from any account I used at the time."
Which is of course something we (not less than 60 people swore to this
fact under oath that our accounts had been hacked) stated in our
lawsuit against the casino agents when we complained about them
forging posts under our account names - this is of course something on
the public record that is always ignored by the present smear gang,
but not for long I suspect.
Moreover, giggle, Google is NOT reading my posts (nor anyone else's)
and determining which posts to keep and which to discard like one of
the smear gang leader's recently preposterously whined and barked -
and no, soldiers in Vietnam that knew how to call in Artillery
strikes, Air strikes, and knew how to set trip wires and Claymores are
NOT "phonies" just because they knew how to do those simple and common
things while serving in a combat zone during a time when there really
was combat. (Of course this does not include those that were in
Vietnam to just guard lonely borders, play S-3, or to ride around in
stolen jeeps while playing Village Rat).
End of Disclaimer:
BROOKS SECRET SQUIRREL CODE BOOK
Nigel Brooks said:
"Nigel Brooks" <1. nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:6p9475F...@mid.individual.net...
>
> It is quite pathetic really.
>
> On this day, when most Americans are giving thanks for their
> blessings,
> Mr. Reiman continues his campaign of USENET abuse and harassment of
> those
> who dared to differ with his inane opinions and who called him on
> his self
> important and inflated war stories.
>
> What a sad, confused, paranoid and sorry P.O.S. he truly is.>
> Nigel Brooks
Then, after I noted his "self-important and inflated war stories"
phrase about me was pure BS and in fact Brooks has been unable to
disprove anything I have ever said about my military service (or
anything else that is). Notwithstanding of course typos, errors such
he has dredged out of my waste basket or posts actually written by
others, or his or his gang's outright forgeries. Regardless, after I
pointed out his fraud we suddenly were presented with a
"clarification" of the "self-important" BS Brooks phrase below:
(Note that only Nigel Brooks is allowed by Brooks and his gang to post
"clarifications" of their previous posts. When anyone else clarifies
something he previously posted or was posted by someone else under an
account he was using, Brooks, howls, dances, bellows and barks
"revisionism" "hiding posts" and of course his staple, "lying."
Did I mention the word "hypocrite" in connection with Nigel Brooks? If
I didn't I should have).
Brooks said:
***************Post revised for clarification
purposes**********************
The use of the terms "self important and inflated war stories" in no
way
modifies my original assessment that the posts previously made by
Reiman
concerning his experiences in Vietnam and elsewhere, as commented on
by
myself since March 2005 in this newsgroup (alt.war.vietnam)were lies.
Nigel Brooks
superfluous newsgroups removed
Then, in a subsequent post BS "the hypocrite" Brooks said:
You could actually have a whole bunch of associated terms"
"ReimanWorld" - A domain ruled by his omnipotence DGVR (aka Doug
Grant) -
in ReimanWorld anything is possible, the sovereign is the sole
interpreter
of the law, and his word is final in all matters. In ReimanWorld court
losses in other domains automatically are turned into wins, and the
plain
English language meaning of things are totally subject the the
interpretation of the sovereign.
"ReimanSpeak" - It means whatever the Sovereign of ReimanWorld say's
it
means - and is subject to reinterpretation by the Sovereign at any
time.
"ReimanRevision" - To revise and rewrite past writings that have been
determined to have been "economical with the truth".
"He gone done a Reiman" - A total breakdown of sanity, resulting in
overly
long, repetitive and confusing rants aimed at perceived detractors and
opponents in usenet that confuse rather than elucidate matters.
Nigel Brooks
Doug's Rebuttal: Ignoring the personal insults for a moment, consider
that Nigel Brooks is complaining that a person that writes something
always claims to be the sole "sovereign" over his own writing.
In other words, Brooks is whining that I believe the author of a quip
or article or exchange is the ONLY person that can possibly know the
true context, intent and meaning of what the author wrote.
Mind reading is not a perfect science, and all of Brooks' past
soothsaying claims have been disproved. So in fact Brooks' claim that
I believe I am the "sovereign" over everything I have ever written is
absolutely true. This is especially true when someone removes excerpts
from posts years apart, dealing with completely different subjects,
and then splices them together like Brooks does, and then adds or
takes away key words also like Brooks and his gang does, then they
(the gang) are in fact *forging* the true context, meaning and intent
of the original post!
Who other than the author (or the typist or dictator in the case of a
typist) would know the true intent, context and meaning of the
original post in which Brooks has surgically removed a key sentence so
he can splice or juxtapose it with other sentences from other posts so
as to present a completely (and always defaming) *new* context,
meaning and intent of the post or quip in question?
Brooks whines that "his interpretation" of everything written on
USENET is always "economical with the truth" - but of course his claim
is utter bullshit.
His past forgeries, splicing, defaming parsing and general misuse of
English terms clearly demonstrates that Brooks *always* uses the most
defaming spin possible on anything written by any of his smear
victims, and he NEVER asks the author first what the true intent,
meaning and context were of the quip or post in question. (Smear
merchants and con men know they cannot first ask the authors about
true intent, context and meaning before they comment on a past post of
their victim because then they could not distort, forge and falsely
present the true context, meaning and intent of the quip or post in
the most defaming manner possible).
I believe Brooks is a good con man. He provides volumes of BS, lies,
fraud, forgeries, false accusations, and then he tries to find past
posts from his victim that will fit into his deliberate and malicious
smear and demonizing campaigns. If he cannot find such posts that are
specific to his needs to lend credibility to his false accusations, he
then *modifies* those writings in such a manner to make them appear
like they are something they are not, or he actually removes key words
or adds key words to the quip so again to distort its previous meaning
and intent.
What Brooks is so upset about is that I am one of his victims that
will defend myself with the truth. I will actually address his
forgeries, fraud and distortions, and explain to all how, why and what
Brooks did. Sometimes this takes some detail, so to hide my rebuttals
and the truth Brooks and his gang typically:
1. Snips out my rebuttals so they cannot be read.
2. Whine and cry they are "rants" or are "too long" so as to dissuade
people from reading the truth about Nigel Brooks and his gang.
BS Brooks' Pathetic World
Nigel complains about his inability to understand the written word if
any of his victims write it. He whines and squeals that I write words
that he just cannot understand, like the word "and" or the word
"retired" or the word "involved" or one of about a dozen other very
simple terms that I was forced to post the American Heritage's
Dictionary definition for Nigel. (Don't make me post URL's to all
those times I had to explain to Nigel that English terms have more
than his "most defaming interpretation possible" malicious and
fraudulent "interpretation.")
Nigel says those that use words he cannot distort, lie about or forge
into something defaming about the author (because there are several
different uses or definitions for words he tries to twist and distort
into the most defaming context he can dream up) are words that
contradict the "plain meaning" of such terms, which is known, of
course, only to Nigel Brooks and his gang members.
For Nigel's "plain meaning" or "economical truth" to exist for the
rest of the world we would first be required to:
1. Lie and smear Veterans, and then when the records arrive on the
Veteran that proves Nigel and his gang have been lying all along,
distort, lie and manufacture utter bullshit about what the Vet said in
the past especially in respect to context and meaning. Moreover, to
understand Nigel we would also be required to distort the meaning and
substance of his victims' military records to a degree that military
experts agree Nigel and gang are either drooling idiots or
deliberately using deception and fraud to smear and defame others.
(Such as claiming all combat missions are entered into someone's 201
file, or claiming that MOS dictates the duties of every solider in a
combat zone, or claiming that units such as the 1/27th Wolfhounds have
"personnel offices" or when the DOA formed that new special forces
that was designed exclusively for combat anyone that said they were in
that force were in Nigel Brooks code claiming they were in the 5th
Special Forces, which everyone knows defame those men that performed
in the new special forces as the 5th Special Forces did not have a
strict combat mandate). (Of course there have been no songs nor movies
made about the SFG Reactionary that was approved in January 1968 by
the DOA and then disbanded a little over a year later, but I suspect
those men that served in that very special force during the 1968 Tet
Offensive and Counteroffensive months are no more interested in songs
and movies about them than they are in a chest full of medals nor
green hats).
2. The gang of Brooks when confronted with the need to admit they had
lied about their victims once the Vets FOIA records arrived, then
desperately sought ways to forge, manufacture and distort everything
the vet said in the past to cover their pathetic assess from a
defamation lawsuit. So the most defaming connotation and context were
automatically assigned to anything the gang thought their victim might
have written in the past, and if they could not distort anything wrote
into something defaming, then Brooks or one of his gang members would
simply "add or take away" a few key words from the post so as to FORGE
a completely new meaning, or intent or context to their victim's post.
A Recent Example of a Nigel Brooks "English Term Interpretation"
3. To understand BS Brooksspeak, one must first understand Nigel's
"Interpretations of English terms": As a classic example consider
Nigel's recent posts about me:
"The use of the terms "self important and inflated war stories" in no
way
modifies my original assessment that the posts previously made by
Reiman
concerning his experiences in Vietnam and elsewhere, as commented on
by
myself since March 2005 in this newsgroup (alt.war.vietnam)were lies."
Nigel Brooks
Doug's Rebuttal:
(1) Nigel above is clarifying something he said earlier, but when
anyone else does that he howls "revisionism." Pot Kettle Black.
(2) Nigel says I used "Reimanspeak" as indicated above, but now he
wants us to believe the true meaning of the terms of "self-important"
is really "lie." Say what???? A search of all dictionaries in the
known world will not return a definition of "lies" for the terms
"self-important." So now each time Nigel uses the phrase
"self-important" we are required to refer to our special "BS Brooks
Secret Squirrel code book" and thereby divine what Nigel was really
saying was "lies" and NOT "self-important" like he actually wrote.
(3). Next we see Nigel's term of "inflated" also to mean, in his
special BS Brooks Secret Squirrel code book, to really also mean
"lies." Yet I cannot find any English dictionary that provides that
definition to the term "Inflated." Exaggerate yes, lie no.
The above are just two classic and very recent examples of Nigel
Brooks "BS Brooks Speak." You really need his "BS Brooks Secret
Squirrel code book" and special "BS Brooks Secret Squirrel dictionary"
to even begin to understand what ol Nigel is trying to say.
I have given up on trying to understand his use (misuse) of the
English language long ago. I noted that in every case Mr. Brooks can
find and use only a single definition of a simple term that contains
multiple definitions. Moreover, Mr. BS Brooks definition is always the
definition or "spin" that would create the most defaming context or
meaning of the written word as it applies to the author of the quip or
post.
I have also learned long ago that Nigel Brook's "English Language
Interpretation" is whatever are the most "malicious and defaming."
Moreover, I have also learned that when any author (other than Brooks
or one of his gang members) attempts to clarify or explain his true
intent, context or meaning, Brooks then howls "revisionism" and
"hiding posts" and of course he starts bellowing his standard "mind
reading" claims - or his "Federal Agent" bullshit which means that
because he sniffed bags for the Custom Service once in his life he
somehow developed some "sixth sense" which all of the best
investigators in the land say "does not exist" to sniff out (no pun)
liars, charlatans, and bullshitters. ( I suggest that each time Mr.
Brooks passes a mirror his self-acclaimed extraordinary talent is
functioning very well).
I have downloaded *several* Nigel Brooks posts in which he posts
"clarifications" and explanations of his context and meanings of
terms - even bizarre definitions and explanations right out of his "BS
Brooks Secret Squirrel code book and dictionary" an example of we see
above.
Need I post all the times Nigel Brooks has contradicted his own claims
that authors are NOT the sole sovereigns over the writings they
produce? Keep in mind I only post these rebuttals in my defense. If
Brooks and his gang can find a way to stop themselves from using their
standard false accusations and fraud, my rebuttals pointing out the
truth of their fraud would not be necessary. But I will not stop
defending myself from Nigel Brooks and his gang. Someone needs to post
the truth about this fraud and smear gang, and I suspect they have
found a victim that is determined to do precisely that in his defense.
Doug Grant (Tm)