NIGEL BROOKS - SECTION OSCAR - PART II - REBUTTAL TO BROOKS LIES ABOUT GOOGLE REMOVALS, MY MILITARY SERVICE AND HIS PREPOSTEROUS MATH
DGVREIMAN
NIGEL BROOKS - SECTION OSCAR - PART II - REBUTTAL TO NIGEL
BROOKS LIES ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE AND PREPOSTEROUS MATH
Nigel Brooks" <
> wrote in message
news:4t8du9F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Dai-Uy-14C0B3....@news-lb-01.socal.rr.com...
>> In article
>> <cYednQze142t1vPY...@comcast.com>,
>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>>
>>> Brooks Said:
>>>
>>> file complaints with Clark County Washington
>>> > prosecutors,
>>>
>>> Doug Says: Nonsense. That is a bald face lie. I never
>>> filed
>>> any official complaints with any Clark County Washington
>>> prosecutors.
>>
Brooks said:
> "Any decent lawyer would advise his client to immediately
> cease any communication with those the client seeks to
> engage in litigation."
Doug Says: Rebuttal: Your legal advice, considering your
nick name is
Inspector Cluso, is not compelling.
Although in normal cases your statement above might be true,
it does not apply to gang or mob stalking and defamation
which Mr. Shaver has dealt with extensively before. (BTW Mr.
Shaver is in Singapore and won't return until December 4th).
Allowing a gang of stalkers or mob harassment to run
unabated only means the mob or gang will achieve their
defamation and smear campaign while litigation is pending -
which will be for about ten years.
You and your gang will continue to post your fraud and false
accusations under different names
and several different remailers while that litigation is
pending. My lawyer has advised me I have a right and duty to
defend myself from your fraud, forgeries, lies, outright
defamation and obloquy, regardless of pending litigation.
You will not succeed in stopping me from rebutting your
smears, defamation and fraud by convincing someone to file
fraudulent charges against me, or when we go into litigation
use your gang to defame me further. Won't work this time.
Think again Brooks. However, if your gang stops the
harassment, fraud, lies, cherry picking statements out of
context from posts that never appeared on AWV newsgroups
that were posted years ago and then trying to use that
information in a Vietnam Veterans group for the purpose of
defamation and harassment, then of course I would not need
to post any more rebuttals to such defamation and
harassment. So if you and your gang adhere to the demand
from my lawyer for you to cease and desist your
harassments - then your lies, fraud, forgeries, false
accusations and general defamation that you regularly use to
harass and defame will not have a reason to be refuted.
Also note that many Nigel Brook gang members have falsely
claimed that I voluntarily came to AWV and started posting
claims about my past military exploits - at least this is
the "lie" that has been told to many when third parties are
contacted and provided the libel and defamation the Brooks
gang produces. But the evidence proves this is nothing but a
gang lie.
The facts are that Brooks and his fellow gang members have
excerpted many out-of-context statements, errors, typos,
mistypes, gaffs, and such from more than twenty-thousand
(20,000) previous posts that were posted under the
cooperative Doug Grant account by many different people.
NONE of those excerpted, quips, idioms or figures of
speeches were written for a Veterans newsgroup, NONE of
those quips, idioms or even the errors were ever represented
as nonfiction. They were mostly inserts, idioms or quips
inserted into an article that were designed to make a point
or create an image that conveyed the message the author was
trying to convey. They had nothing to do with any "claims"
of military service designed to be posted on any Veterans
newsgroup for minute scrutiny in the respect that every word
had to be proven with some historical record. Many
statements were nothing more than "quips" or "idioms"
(written by many different people) contained within articles
that had absolutely nothing to do with a Veterans newsgroup,
or Vietnam, or the US Army, nor the duties therein. (I am
sure that Brooks could take excerpts from many Articles
written by almost anyone and create "questions" about those
excerpts that would imply the writer was lying. I could do
precisely the same to all of Brook's posts - but I will not
even in my defense as I know that is a known smear merchant
and unethical procedure).
Brooks is not reviewing a novel or book presented as
nonfiction. He is excerpting articles from Blogs written on
newsgroups NOT related to any Veterans or Veteran claims of
service. In many cases the Blogs were written to see if a
response could be enticed - and how many responses based
upon various different formats. This would indicate which
articles should be used in a book of those articles. You
will not see any representation at the top of each article
that the author is claiming all that is written there can be
proved, or is some boast or even a completely true
historical record or representation by the author. It is a
"story" a "Blog" for heaven's sake - not a biography like
Brooks tries to claim it is! Defaming someone over Blogs
written by many different people for many different reasons
is beyond unethical, it can only mean any such person doing
so has an ulterior purpose to defame and harass the authors.
I mean, really, using a figure of speech and obvious joke
and hyperbole such as "I was trained to kill the wounded and
eat the prisoners" or "I was trained to kill the prisoners
and eat the wounded" is NOT a biographical confession of
cannibalism!
Although based upon that figure of speech alone the Brooks
gang has posted more than five hundred posts on USENET,
accusing me of "feasting on the bodies of the dead VC I
killed." The reason for this defamation from Brooks and gang
members et al is obvious: Deliberate, purposeful and
malicious defamation, harassment and stalking.
The Doug Grant (Tm) accounts published commentaries were
expository treatises or reflected a series of annotations,
or an exegesis of a political or contemporary publication or
event. They had nothing whatsoever to do with any Veterans
group, or Veterans.
The Doug Grant (Tm) DGVReiman accounts published
commentaries or treatises simply expressed an opinion, were
presented as rhetorical discourses, and sometimes were
presented with a quip, idiom, or an analogous story that
could never always be taken literally.
I nor any members of my group do not and have never claimed
to be reporters nor journalists - we are simply bloggers,
writers that express their subjective opinions with a
literary license to use fiction and nonfiction
interchangeably to make any point. Moreover, I *never*
posted any articles or anything else on any Veterans
newsgroup until I was attacked on that newsgroup with
defamation, lies and preposterous and defaming
misrepresentations of what the cabal was falsely claiming I
had written in the past.
Brooks Goes on to say:
>
> Any prudent attorney who, having learned that his client
> has frantically requested the google archive to remove his
> prior internet postings after it was proven he had lied,
> would immediately disassociate himself from such a client.
Doug Says: Rebuttal: Removing posts in error from google is
commonplace, logical and should be done as the following
post proves. (According to Google more than twenty-eight
thousand posts have already been removed, and members of the
Nigel Brooks gang have also removed dozens of posts so
Brooks' statement above is clearly hypocritical and false).
http://tinyurl.com/y7r5qm (Section November Rebuttal and why
posts are removed from Google Archives)
Moreover, you have not proved I lied about anything, ever.
You know it and I know it.
In addition, you are lying when you claimed I "frantically"
did anything.
Your mind reading skills failed all of my tests miserably
and your ridiculous and "Inspector Cluso" type claims that
you can read my mind and determine what I was thinking years
before you even started your smear campaign against me is
beyond fraudulent, it is unethical hogwash. Moreover, in my
opinion you are too incredibly stupid to tell any lawyer
what to do, or even tell a 6th grader what to do. No one in
their right mind would believe you have "mind reading
skills." Nigel, you have failed all tests in that regard,
but I will give you one more chance to succeed:
Mind Reading Test for Nigel
What am I thinking right now Nigel as I write this very
passage? Go ahead, reply to this post and tell me precisely
what I am thinking as I write this very sentence. TEST TEST
TEST of Nigel Brook's mind reading skills underway. (We
shall see from his reply whether his claimed sorcery
abilities are true, or he is just blustering and posting
false and misleading information again).
Smear merchants do not give good legal advice and they
cannot even think properly - also they are way too dishonest
and unethical to be able to read minds. They can barely read
their own not to mention others.
Brooks Says:
"Any prudent attorney who is aware that his client has
constructed
> an implausible story that the removed postings were either
> (1)dictated to and typed by a secretary who made errors in
> transcription(2)the work of multiple authors(3)forgeries
> by a conspiratorial gang of casino agents or some other
> such equally laughable explanation would be a fool to
> represent such a charlatan."
Doug Says: Rebuttal: Please now Brooks, you know and we all
know that more than seventy-one (71) Google Archived posts
prove others wrote information under that account, and that
we used cooperative typists. And our lawsuit proves that our
computers were hacked and posts were posted from those
hacked computers - and that lawsuit proving all these facts
was filed long before you started your harassment and smear
campaign. You even admitted it below.
So now you are claiming that your own confession that you
knew that others were writing under the account you
constantly attributed to me is "laughable" yet you
previously posted the below admission that you found this
fact to be completely true. You obviously are lying Brooks -
and just as obviously you have been caught again doing so.
(See below).
In the following URL Nigel Brooks openly confesses that
contrary to his hundreds of defaming posts about me, he is
really not sure that anything he and his gang have ever
claimed I posted
on USENET in the past were actually written by me. (If you
are a gang member and you have parroted what Brooks has said
about me, you should be hereby advised that your own source
has just proved you a liar in a court of law).
Here is what Nigel Brooks stated, with evidence below in the
following
Tiny URL:
"Trouble is - you can never be sure that he (Reiman) was
doing the posting.. Could've been someone on his team, or a
typo by one of his typists who didn't get his dictation down
right. Or a
typist who put a Doug Grant signature on a Dr Profe's post
in error."
Nigel Brooks
http://tinyurl.com/rhlvz
http://tinyurl.com/zfmfb This is the Url that lists several
previous Google Archived posts - long before Brooks started
his smear campaign against me - which absolutely prove we
announced several times that we were using typists and that
many different people were posting under the Doug Grant
account. And this is the very same account that Nigel loves
to falsely and exclusively (false by his own confession
above and by the facts and all evidence) attribute to me.
What also makes Nigel Brook's public confession that he knew
other people were using the dggrant account he was
misquoting and exclusively and falsely attributing to me,
and that typists were being used with editorial capabilities
in those posts, more remarkable than normal is that Mr.
Brooks first claimed and swore that I never said anything
about dozens of different people using the Dggrant account
*before he announced he filed a FOIA request on me!* But a
simple Google search proves, once again, that Nigel Brooks
has been caught in mid deception and lie.
Of course, as the above URL proves, I incontrovertibly and
demonstratively prove Brook's false accusation that I never
said anything about many different people posting under the
Dggrant account, and that we were all using typists to type
our posts and dictation, before he filed his FOIA request on
me, was, and is, just another unethical bald face lie from
Nigel Brooks.
Obviously, I publicly announced that several different
people were using that Dggrant account and that we were
cooperatively using many different typists to post our
dictationhttp://tinyurl.com/zfmfb (see the above URL hat
lists several previous Google Archived posts that proves
this fact) long before Brooks started his smear campaign
against me.
Nigel's Goes on with another preposterous statement - almost
so obviously false it is unbelievable.
"Mr Reiman's explanation concerning the false claims made in
his previous usenet postings "might" be believable were they
to involve only one or two instances however, the
disparities in what he has previously said, and what the
record actually shows amounts to far more than
one or two instances. Mr. Reimans postings to usenet groups
concerning his experiences in Vietnam are replete with
proven falsehoods and false statements."
Doug Says: Rebuttal: Since Mr. Brooks has never provided any
proof of his ridiculous claims proving that what I have said
about my military service is "replete with proven falsehoods
and false statements" I for one would love, and do hereby
invite Mr. Brooks to post such proof. Of course I mean
"proof" - you know documents, scanned, not postulated "mind
reading skills" from Nigel, and please no Brooks' false
claims that; " I am an expert on the US Army" - considering
by his own admission he only spent two whole years in the US
Army as a draftee. And please no more nonsense that; " I am
an expert investigator and my mind reading skills tell me
Doug is lying" Inspector Cluso nonsense either. PROOF! (The
proof would apply to what *I* wrote about my service as is
contained in my copyrights (the registration TX number can
be found in Section November below - and not what others
might have written, or what others falsely said I wrote or
said).
So far, as all my past rebuttals clearly prove, (SEE THE
TINY URLS BELOW) everything Nigel has stated as defamation
about my military service is based exclusively on his
pejorative, ridiculous, false and preposterous innuendo and
claims about the duties of Senior NCO's in the US Army with
a Personnel Manpower MOS. In fact my rebuttals prove
irrefutably that Brooks has lied in every case I mention.
EVERY CASE! See for yourself.
(Section Mike See this Tiny Url for the truth about Nigel
Brooks.).
http://tinyurl.com/y7r5qm (Section November Rebuttal and why
posts are removed from Google Archives)
Nigel's Incredible, Ludicrous and Blatantly False Math
The most recent telltale, ridiculous and preposterous claim
from Mr. Brooks can be proved a lie almost instantly. Read
above where Mr. Brooks provided the most ridiculous basis
for his claim that the errors and typos we removed from
Google were not errors:
Here is Brook's reason why the erroneous posts we correctly
and prudently removed from Google (with Google's permission
and review I might add) were not really errors or miss
writes or mistypes:
"Mr Reiman's explanation concerning the false claims made in
his previous usenet postings "might" be believable were they
to involve only one or two instances however, the
disparities in what he has previously said, and what the
record actually shows amounts to far more than
one or two instances. "
Doug Says: The above statement is the most preposterous,
ridiculous, idiotic, goofy, gaff and false claim I have ever
read coming from Nigel Brooks, and that is saying a lot!
First: I have provided in my Section November rebuttal, and
provided the TX registration number for my copyrighted
articles, to verify precisely what *I* wrote when I first
wrote those articles long before Brooks started his smear
campaign against me!
The public copyrights (which do not lie) prove irrefutably
there is a difference between some of the articles I wrote
and what was eventually was posted on USENET by our typists.
If the difference was misleading, or contained an error or
an ambiguity, it was correctly removed from Google Archives,
and that is precisely why Google offers that service!
Twenty-eight thousand past posts have been removed by USENET
posters so far, including many from the Nigel Brooks gang!
So is the Library of Congress lying, or is Brooks lying?
Pick one. (Brooks clearly did not know that I had
copyrighted those articles - he should have checked before
he starting lying about them).
Second: Mr. Brooks preposterous and obviously pejorative and
self-serving conclusion above that there could only be two
typos or less in all of our Twenty-Thousand (20,000) or so
posts before we could claim a post was removed in error, is
beyond ridiculous, it is absurd, obviously false, and just
as obviously Brooks is "fabricating" reasons to claim that
we did not remove posts because they were in error or
contained gaffs or misstatements.
Third: Brooks and his fellow gang member SteveL posted
endless posts that we removed posts to hide them. But when I
proved we removed them due to errors and typos and other
mistakes, Brooks was cornered. He could not admit he and his
gang had been defaming, stalking and harassing me for years
over just a few typos and errors, so he came up with his BS
formula for deciding whether someone removed a post due to a
lie or an error based upon his own, self-serving ridiculous,
goofy, skewed, pejorative, mathematically absurd and
completely ludicrous "only two errors are allowed in
twenty-thousand posts" formula.
Consider the math of Brooks goofy "excuse" for his and
SteveL's fraudulent claim the posts we removed were to hide
lies and not simply because they contained errors or
misstatements:
Twenty-Thousand (20,000) posts with an average of 500 words
per post (that is probably light but a good number to use)
indicates TEN MILLION WORDS!
Brooks claims that only a maximum of two errors could be
made in those ten million words before anyone should believe
that we removed posts due to errors. That means Brooks is
claiming that all that post on USENET (including him and his
gang members) must make less than .00002% errors! And if
they remove posts from the Google archive that have a higher
percentage of typos and errors than .00002%, *then,
according to Brooks own statements and formula above, all
those posts removed were to hide previous lies!*
If I remember correctly, out of the twenty-thousand Doug
Grant (Tm) posts that Brooks has reviewed, he has found only
four or five glaring typo type errors that we admitted were
errors and then were consequently removed from the Google
archive. That represents only about .00005% errors in total.
Here is an interesting challenge for all:
Read Brooks, Dai Uy' and other gang member's posts and count
the amount of typos and errors in their posts. I suggest you
will NOT find .00002 errors, nor even .00005 errors, you
will find at least 100 times that percentage of errors in
their own posts!
So based upon Nigel Brooks formula, both Brooks and Dai Uy
have been lying all along. Why? Because they make more than
.00002 errors in their posts! BWHAHAHAHAHA. What utter
nonsense BS Brooks tries to use to extract himself from the
tangled web of lies and deceit he has been spinning about me
for almost two years!
In truth, a typical typist makes at least 5% errors, and
when you add dictation, several different typists exchanging
conversations with different people while changing typists
right in the middle of the thread or exchange, and allowing
typists to have editorial rights to modify a dictation or
previously written post for clarity or brevity, then the
amount of errors, typos, gaffs, misstatements and
ambiguities rises logically to at least 20% of all posts.
That means out of Twenty-thousand posts, at least four
thousand posts should contain major errors, gaffs,
misstatements or gross ambiguities. Brooks has found five.
That also means out of ten million words, there should be
about five-hundred thousand typos. Again, Brooks has found
about "five."
If you further consider that Brooks and his gang have posted
more than three thousand defaming posts about me due only to
about five typos out of twenty-thousand posts, not to
mention Brooks also created at least eight web sites
designed to defame me, scores of threats of violence and
other threats, the mailing of the defamation and false
accusations due to these said five errors to hundreds of
other third parties, the conclusion of WHY Brooks and his
gang have perpetrated these acts is more than obvious to any
fair minded person:
Deliberate and intentional smearing, obloquy, defamation and
fraud designed to (1) destroy my reputation, (2) cause me
and my family extreme trepidation (3) to cost me money and
future income in respect to my articles and books, (4) to
destroy me and my family in every way imaginable, and (5) to
cause me and my family extreme emotional harm and distress.
Three Thousand Defaming Posts over Just a Few Errors and
Typos
More than three thousand defaming posts, not less than eight
web sites designed to defame me, and hundreds of third
parties contacted with said defamation and fraud, all
because of about five typos out of twenty-thousand posts.
That is the legacy of Nigel Brooks, and if you are a part of
it you should be as ashamed of this hatchet job as much as
Brooks should be.
However, with that said I do realize that some of those that
have defamed me were deceived by Nigel Brooks and Dai Uy. If
you believe you were deceived then please email my lawyer
with that confession and your name will not be entered on
the forthcoming litigation. (Note that I gave Brooks the
rest of December to (1) stop the harassment forever and (2)
to remove his defaming web sites, and if he does not comply
then I will be forced to file appropriate legal action in
January 2007).
I have bent over backwards in notifying all that unless they
stopped their harassment and defamation I would take
appropriate legal action. Now the warnings are over, save
this last one. In fact, if Brooks and his gang members do
not do as I and my lawyer have asked them to do, then I
hereby promise I will file litigation in respect to his
issue by the end of January 2007 or I will never post on
this newsgroup again.
So if you do not want to be a part of the massive amount of
litigation that is coming your way, (based upon Brooks' past
performance I do not expect him or his close gang members to
comply with my lawyer's demands for him to cease and desist
his harassments and remove his defaming web sites) and you
believe you have been deceived by Brooks or other members of
his gang into defaming me, then email my lawyer below with
that confession on or before December 10th, 2006, and your
name will not be involved in the litigation other than you
signing a sworn deposition to the fact that Brooks deceived
you.
However, if you do not send out such a said email to my
lawyer by December 10th, then I will proceed with the
understanding that you believe, meant and stand by every
defaming, false or obloquies post you posted about me that
referenced me in any manner, by name, nickname or handle.
And I will take all appropriate legal action against you for
your actions.
Peter Vaughan Shaver, Esq.
SOUND ADVICE, LLC
3939 NE Hancock Street, Suite 308
P: (503) 473-8252 / F: (503) 288-5219
Doug Grant (Tm) DGVReiman.
(Section Mike - See Section C Part
One). See this Tiny Url for the truth about Nigel Brooks.
http://tinyurl.com/y7r5qm (Section November Rebuttal and why
posts are removed from Google Archives)
SteveL
wrote:
>
>NIGEL BROOKS - SECTION OSCAR - PART II - REBUTTAL TO NIGEL
>BROOKS LIES ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE AND PREPOSTEROUS MATH
>
>
>
>Nigel Brooks" <
>
>nbr...@msn.com
>
>> wrote in message
>news:4t8du9F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:Dai-Uy-14C0B3....@news-lb-01.socal.rr.com...
>>> In article
>>> <cYednQze142t1vPY...@comcast.com>,
>>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brooks Said:
>>>>
>>>> file complaints with Clark County Washington
>>>> > prosecutors,
>>>>
>>>> Doug Says: Nonsense. That is a bald face lie. I never
>>>> filed
>>>> any official complaints with any Clark County Washington
>>>> prosecutors.
>>>
>
>
<snip>
<snip>
>
>Third: Brooks and his fellow gang member SteveL posted
>endless posts that we removed posts to hide them. But when I
>proved we removed them due to errors and typos and other
>mistakes,
Hold it right there. You did NOTHING of the sort. You merely claimed
that this was your reason for removing your posts when you were
challenged on it. You proved nothing - except that you have no concept
of what even approaches "proof".
You merely repost (*continually*) a tinyurl to a post where you
offered nothing but that claim. And you insanely call that "proof"!.
(It's a tactic you use all the time. You'll say something like "This
post proves Nigel is lyingand proves that a member of my team wrote
that post". A reader clicks it and discovers it only basically says:
"Nigel you are lying. I didn't write that post. One of my team did".)
Later you quoted an old post dating back to your RGB days where you
had said something similar and triumphantly offered this as "proof" as
well! (it would seem this isn't your first experience of removing your
posts from Google and/or Deja).
Doug. past posts denying a similar charge are not support for present
posts denying the same thing!!!
.
You assertion that this is "proof" is beyond laughable.
>Brooks was cornered. He could not admit he and his
>gang had been defaming, stalking and harassing me for years
>over just a few typos and errors, so he came up with his BS
>formula for deciding whether someone removed a post due to a
>lie or an error based upon his own, self-serving ridiculous,
>goofy, skewed, pejorative, mathematically absurd and
>completely ludicrous "only two errors are allowed in
>twenty-thousand posts" formula.
Nobody but you is alleging an error was made at all!! You are the one
claiming you posts contain errors and typos. Then you turn around and
claim it is ridiculous to complain about typos and errors!!!
Well I suggest you stop doing it!
>
>Consider the math of Brooks goofy "excuse" for his and
>SteveL's fraudulent claim the posts we removed were to hide
>lies and not simply because they contained errors or
>misstatements:
>
>Twenty-Thousand (20,000) posts with an average of 500 words
>per post (that is probably light but a good number to use)
>indicates TEN MILLION WORDS!
>
>Brooks claims that only a maximum of two errors could be
>made in those ten million words before anyone should believe
>that we removed posts due to errors. That means Brooks is
>claiming that all that post on USENET (including him and his
>gang members) must make less than .00002% errors! And if
>they remove posts from the Google archive that have a higher
>percentage of typos and errors than .00002%, *then,
>according to Brooks own statements and formula above, all
>those posts removed were to hide previous lies!*
>
>If I remember correctly, out of the twenty-thousand Doug
>Grant (Tm) posts that Brooks has reviewed, he has found only
>four or five glaring typo type errors that we admitted were
>errors and then were consequently removed from the Google
>archive. That represents only about .00005% errors in total.
Doug. Stop a minute and learn that smart people are not convinced by
the Straw Man. YOU are the only one talking about typos and errors. It
is *your* excuse for removing your own posts. We know you removed them
because they embarrass you and catch you out in lies.
You erect a straw man and then tear it down, and then you complain
about people tearing it down, when the one and only person doing that
is you!
You are very stupid, and dishonest.
<snip desperate dancing>
Pepperoni
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
news:nbidndtpdvpwtO7Y...@comcast.com...
>
>
> Moreover, you have not proved I lied about anything, ever. You know it and
> I know it.
>
I believe ya, Doug.
Tell us about killing "a few priests."
Nigel Brooks
news:FY-dnfBr5-CA3e7Y...@giganews.com...
Not only the strawman strategy but did you also note the following in Mr.
Reiman's latest rant:
"I nor any members of my group do not and have never claimed to be reporters
nor journalists - we are simply bloggers, writers that express their
subjective opinions with a literary license to use fiction and nonfiction
interchangeably to make any point. Moreover, I *never* posted any articles
or anything else on any Veterans newsgroup until I was attacked on that
newsgroup with defamation, lies and preposterous and defaming
misrepresentations of what the cabal was falsely claiming I had written in
the past."
Not suprisingly Mr. Reiman's assertion that "I nor any members of my group
do not and have never claimed to be reporters nor journalists' appears to
an inaccurate statement.
In a posting to alt.politics.usa on June 27, 2003 Mr Reiman said the
following:
Path:
archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.he.net!newsfeed1.easynews.com!easynews.com!easynews!border3.nntp.aus1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.news-media,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.security.terrorism
References: <7tBHa.3784$Ly2.7...@cletus.bright.net>
<bqg0fvk2rdrgl6efj...@4ax.com>
<eb35fbed.03061...@posting.google.com>
<8qg8fvoj9v466h7k5...@4ax.com>
<Y2EJa.4450$II5....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com>
<F%jKa.20543$0v4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<kevans-951106....@news.videotron.net>
<diqKa.21060$0v4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<UbprpkhY...@auchnarrow.demon.co.uk>
<LFEKa.21944$0v4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<bdffv1$sdm$1...@sparta.btinternet.com>
Subject: Re: Were trailers full of hot air?
Lines: 229
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Message-ID: <48ZKa.24575$0v4.1...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:10:56 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.82.129.104
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1056726656 12.82.129.104 (Fri,
27 Jun 2003 15:10:56 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:10:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
Doug Says: We are not comparing anything to the NY Post, justpointing out
the BBC and the Guardian are not truthful sources for information. I do not
read the NY Post, I do read the Washington Post, which is my favorite
newspaper. Mostly, as someone with press credentials also, I read the news
wires.
AND
Path:
archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-06!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-08!supernews.com!64.152.100.70.MISMATCH!sjc70.webusenet.com!sjc72.webusenet.com!news.webusenet.com!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.news-media,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.security.terrorism
References: <sYz4a.41151$rq4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<b2uil7$27j$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>
<i6975v88pju4qp908...@4ax.com>
<51X4a.61330$zF6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<b31lro$qsv$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
<2_75a.43394$rq4.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<b33b3m$o8h$1...@slb9.atl.mindspring.net>
Subject: Re: IRAQI SCIENTIST TALKS!
Lines: 1286
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
Message-ID: <UKa5a.62251$zF6.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:19:00 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.82.137.60
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1045772340 12.82.137.60 (Thu, 20
Feb 2003 20:19:00 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 20:19:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"'Doug Says: Moron, if you have a TV turn it on. Every news agency in the
world reported this story a few hours after I posted it. It came in through
Reuters, and UPI. I have press credentials and I can gain access to these
stories as well as any network."
Stand by for long diatribe
-- Nigel Brooks
DGVREIMAN
Nigel Brooks" <
Brooks said:
Brooks Says:
Nigel Brooks
http://tinyurl.com/rhlvz
Peter Vaughan Shaver, Esq.
SOUND ADVICE, LLC
Doug Grant (Tm) DGVReiman.
"Doug Reese" <dre...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1165188114.1...@80g2000cwy.googlegroups.com...
>
> Political Pagan wrote:
>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in
>> news:nbidndtpdvpwtO7Y...@comcast.com:
>>
>> > Although in normal cases your statement above might be
>> > true,
>> > it does not apply to gang or mob stalking and
>> > defamation
>> > which Mr. Shaver has dealt with extensively before.
>> > (BTW Mr.
>> > Shaver is in Singapore and won't return until December
>> > 4th).
>>
>> Mr Shaver was not in Singapore when I emailed him a month
>> ago, and he never
>> heard of you. Why don't rebut that one Doogie? Go ahead,
>> because I still
>> have his phone number on my speed dial.
>
> What does being in Singapore have to do with anything?
> Can't he
> read/send e-mail from there?
>
> Hells bells man, I'm in Vietnam and it doesn't stop me.
>
> Can't you think of a better excuse?
>
> Doug REESE
Doug Says: More defamation and lies from the gang - Mr.
Shaver will be back next week. Give him a call. Lying about
him not representing me can be eaisly disproved, pick up the
telehphone or send him an email using your real name -
cowards that hide behind fake names and whine and cry are
not invited.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
Nigel Brooks" <
Brooks said:
Brooks Says:
Nigel Brooks
http://tinyurl.com/rhlvz
Peter Vaughan Shaver, Esq.
SOUND ADVICE, LLC
Doug Grant (Tm) DGVReiman.
"Pepperoni" <tras...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pLmdnUKYgd8r2O7Y...@comcast.com...
>
> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
> news:nbidndtpdvpwtO7Y...@comcast.com...
>>
>>
>> Moreover, you have not proved I lied about anything,
>> ever. You know it and I know it.
>>
>
> I believe ya, Doug.
>
>
> Tell us about killing "a few priests."
Doug Says: Tell us what you are talking about first.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
>
>
DGVREIMAN
NIGEL BROOKS - SECTION OSCAR - PART II - REBUTTAL TO NIGEL
BROOKS LIES ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE AND PREPOSTEROUS MATH
Nigel Brooks" <
> wrote in message
news:4t8du9F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Dai-Uy-14C0B3....@news-lb-01.socal.rr.com...
>> In article
>> <cYednQze142t1vPY...@comcast.com>,
>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>>
>>> Brooks Said:
>>>
>>> file complaints with Clark County Washington
>>> > prosecutors,
>>>
>>> Doug Says: Nonsense. That is a bald face lie. I never
>>> filed
>>> any official complaints with any Clark County Washington
>>> prosecutors.
>>
Brooks said:
Brooks Says:
Nigel Brooks
http://tinyurl.com/rhlvz
Third: Brooks and his fellow gang member SteveL posted
endless posts that we removed posts to hide them. But when I
proved we removed them due to errors and typos and other
mistakes, Brooks was cornered. He could not admit he and his
gang had been defaming, stalking and harassing me for years
over just a few typos and errors, so he came up with his BS
formula for deciding whether someone removed a post due to a
lie or an error based upon his own, self-serving ridiculous,
goofy, skewed, pejorative, mathematically absurd and
completely ludicrous "only two errors are allowed in
twenty-thousand posts" formula.
Consider the math of Brooks goofy "excuse" for his and
SteveL's fraudulent claim the posts we removed were to hide
lies and not simply because they contained errors or
misstatements:
Twenty-Thousand (20,000) posts with an average of 500 words
per post (that is probably light but a good number to use)
indicates TEN MILLION WORDS!
Brooks claims that only a maximum of two errors could be
made in those ten million words before anyone should believe
that we removed posts due to errors. That means Brooks is
claiming that all that post on USENET (including him and his
gang members) must make less than .00002% errors! And if
they remove posts from the Google archive that have a higher
percentage of typos and errors than .00002%, *then,
according to Brooks own statements and formula above, all
those posts removed were to hide previous lies!*
If I remember correctly, out of the twenty-thousand Doug
Grant (Tm) posts that Brooks has reviewed, he has found only
four or five glaring typo type errors that we admitted were
errors and then were consequently removed from the Google
archive. That represents only about .00005% errors in total.
Here is an interesting challenge for all:
Peter Vaughan Shaver, Esq.
SOUND ADVICE, LLC
Doug Grant (Tm) DGVReiman.
"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in
message
news:FY-dnfBr5-CA3e7Y...@giganews.com...
>>Replace replace. Please stop hiding these posts. If you
>>want to snip out the post then change the subject line.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Tankfixer
DGVR...@COMCAST.NET mumbled
> SECTION OSCAR
Funny how this got corrected after he got called on it.
Tankfixer
DGVR...@COMCAST.NET mumbled
>
> However, if you do not send out such a said email to my
> lawyer by December 10th, then I will proceed with the
> understanding that you believe, meant and stand by every
> defaming, false or obloquies post you posted about me that
> referenced me in any manner, by name, nickname or handle.
> And I will take all appropriate legal action against you for
> your actions.
You really want people to do this huh ?
SteveL
wrote:
Was there a reply to my post anywhere in those 650 lines of Usenet
pollution?
In the meantime I'll tackle another part of your post.
>
>In the following URL Nigel Brooks openly confesses that
>contrary to his hundreds of defaming posts about me, he is
>really not sure that anything he and his gang have ever
>claimed I posted
>
>on USENET in the past were actually written by me. (If you
>are a gang member and you have parroted what Brooks has said
>about me, you should be hereby advised that your own source
>has just proved you a liar in a court of law).
>
>Here is what Nigel Brooks stated, with evidence below in the
>following
>Tiny URL:
>
>
>"Trouble is - you can never be sure that he (Reiman) was
>doing the posting.. Could've been someone on his team, or a
>typo by one of his typists who didn't get his dictation down
>right. Or a
>typist who put a Doug Grant signature on a Dr Profe's post
>in error."
>
>Nigel Brooks
>http://tinyurl.com/rhlvz
>
Doug. Anyone with a functioning set of neurons can tell in a second
that Nigel was being sarcastic - and making fun of your own argument.
Here's the full text of Nigel's contribution (a reply to Big Bear, who
was not pleased at all with Doug's threats against him)
*******************************************************************************
Well it's not a game when the clown makes threats - but you certainly
can't take him seriously, he's been thoroughly spanked everywhere he's
been in usenet. A simple google of dgvreiman,
dgvr...@worldnet.att.net will really tell you all you need to know
about him.
Trouble is - you can never be sure that he was doing the posting..
Could've been someone on his team, or a typo by one of his typists who
didn't get his dictation down right. Or a typist who put a Doug Grant
signature on a Dr Profe's post in error.
Just sit back and laugh at the clown - it's much better than taking
his crap seriously.
*******************************************************************************
Once again the reader clicks the link promising proof and not only
sees nothing approaching "proof", but often the complete opposite.
FOAD Doug.
SteveL
wrote:
<snip>
>
>Not only the strawman strategy but did you also note the following in Mr.
>Reiman's latest rant:
>
>"I nor any members of my group do not and have never claimed to be reporters
>nor journalists - we are simply bloggers, writers that express their
>subjective opinions with a literary license to use fiction and nonfiction
>interchangeably to make any point. Moreover, I *never* posted any articles
>or anything else on any Veterans newsgroup until I was attacked on that
>newsgroup with defamation, lies and preposterous and defaming
>misrepresentations of what the cabal was falsely claiming I had written in
>the past."
>
>
>Not suprisingly Mr. Reiman's assertion that "I nor any members of my group
>do not and have never claimed to be reporters nor journalists' appears to
>an inaccurate statement.
So what else is new?
"You take my words out of context in order to deliberately defame me
and harrass me. "Press credentials" clearly refers to my one-year
subscription to the Washington Post, and you twist that into a claim
that I am a reporter!! HAHAHAHAHA!!. Clearly you are desperate as this
1500 line LEGAL NOTICE: SECTION ZZZZZZZ shows"
>
>-- Nigel Brooks
>
Nigel Brooks
Using "Reiman Logic" and "ReimanSpeak" (if you recall he has claimed to have
been "personally involved" and "personally watched" the Battle for Hue and
Au Shaw Valley - and that his "Personal" involvement was due to having
processed officer transfers to those areas) - the claim to having "Press
Credentials" probably comes from his newpaper delivery route.
Nigel Brooks.
DGVREIMAN
NIGEL BROOKS - SECTION OSCAR - PART II - REBUTTAL TO NIGEL
BROOKS LIES ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE AND PREPOSTEROUS MATH
Nigel Brooks" <
> wrote in message
news:4t8du9F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Dai-Uy-14C0B3....@news-lb-01.socal.rr.com...
>> In article
>> <cYednQze142t1vPY...@comcast.com>,
>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>>
>>> Brooks Said:
>>>
>>> file complaints with Clark County Washington
>>> > prosecutors,
>>>
>>> Doug Says: Nonsense. That is a bald face lie. I never
>>> filed
>>> any official complaints with any Clark County Washington
>>> prosecutors.
>>
Brooks said:
Brooks Says:
Nigel Brooks
http://tinyurl.com/rhlvz
Third: Brooks and his fellow gang member SteveL posted
endless posts that we removed posts to hide them. But when I
proved we removed them due to errors and typos and other
mistakes, Brooks was cornered. He could not admit he and his
gang had been defaming, stalking and harassing me for years
over just a few typos and errors, so he came up with his BS
formula for deciding whether someone removed a post due to a
lie or an error based upon his own, self-serving ridiculous,
goofy, skewed, pejorative, mathematically absurd and
completely ludicrous "only two errors are allowed in
twenty-thousand posts" formula.
Consider the math of Brooks goofy "excuse" for his and
SteveL's fraudulent claim the posts we removed were to hide
lies and not simply because they contained errors or
misstatements:
Twenty-Thousand (20,000) posts with an average of 500 words
per post (that is probably light but a good number to use)
indicates TEN MILLION WORDS!
Brooks claims that only a maximum of two errors could be
made in those ten million words before anyone should believe
that we removed posts due to errors. That means Brooks is
claiming that all that post on USENET (including him and his
gang members) must make less than .00002% errors! And if
they remove posts from the Google archive that have a higher
percentage of typos and errors than .00002%, *then,
according to Brooks own statements and formula above, all
those posts removed were to hide previous lies!*
If I remember correctly, out of the twenty-thousand Doug
Grant (Tm) posts that Brooks has reviewed, he has found only
four or five glaring typo type errors that we admitted were
errors and then were consequently removed from the Google
archive. That represents only about .00005% errors in total.
Here is an interesting challenge for all:
Peter Vaughan Shaver, Esq.
SOUND ADVICE, LLC
Doug Grant (Tm) DGVReiman.
"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in
message
news:FY-dnfBr5-CA3e7Y...@giganews.com...
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:48:01 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
> <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>NIGEL BROOKS - SECTION OSCAR - PART II - REBUTTAL TO NIGEL
>>BROOKS LIES ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE AND PREPOSTEROUS
>>MATH
>>
>>
Doug Says: Rebuttal. You cannot hide the truth SteveL.
Name of your lawyer please - or are you going to lie about
that issue some more? If you want to rant and rave about
"Straw men" then change the subject title.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>>
DGVREIMAN
Nigel Brooks" <
Brooks said:
Brooks Says:
In the following URL Nigel Brooks openly confesses that
contrary to his hundreds of defaming posts about me, he is
really not sure that anything he and his gang have ever
claimed I posted
on USENET in the past were actually written by me. (If you
are a gang member and you have parroted what Brooks has said
about me, you should be hereby advised that your own source
has just proved you a liar in a court of law).
Here is what Nigel Brooks stated, with evidence below in the
following
Tiny URL:
"Trouble is - you can never be sure that he (Reiman) was
doing the posting.. Could've been someone on his team, or a
typo by one of his typists who didn't get his dictation down
right. Or a
typist who put a Doug Grant signature on a Dr Profe's post
in error."
Nigel Brooks
http://tinyurl.com/rhlvz
Peter Vaughan Shaver, Esq.
SOUND ADVICE, LLC
Doug Grant (Tm) DGVReiman.
"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in
message news:_d2dnbEj0uj...@giganews.com...
Doug Says Rebuttal: First, you cannot hide my rebuttals to
Nigel Brooks and your lies, stop trying to do so. Second, I
see no joke, no sarcasm, from Nigel, no BWAAAA, no Ha Ha, I
see a clear, unmistakable confession of Brooks that he
clearly knew that others had written posts he and you
fraudulently attributed to me. Trying to excuse his
confession with desperate whines won't convince anyone.
Moreover, there is confirmation. So stop trying to hide,
you will have your day in court, and you can tell the Judge
how you also can read minds and you knew what Nigel meant.
Even his acknowledgement of the fact he knew that others
were involved in our account, and the 71archived posts that
proved that fact, proves his and your claims are false and
your and his intent was to harass and cyberstalk. If you
disagree, tell it to the Judge.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
DGVREIMAN
BROOKS LIES ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE AND PREPOSTEROUS MATH
Nigel Brooks" <
> wrote in message
news:4t8du9F...@mid.individual.net...
> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Dai-Uy-14C0B3....@news-lb-01.socal.rr.com...
>> In article
>> <cYednQze142t1vPY...@comcast.com>,
>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>>
>>> Brooks Said:
>>>
>>> file complaints with Clark County Washington
>>> > prosecutors,
>>>
>>> Doug Says: Nonsense. That is a bald face lie. I never
>>> filed
>>> any official complaints with any Clark County Washington
>>> prosecutors.
>>
Brooks said:
I nor any members of my group do not and have never claimed
to be reporters nor journalists - we are simply bloggers,
writers that express their subjective opinions with a
literary license to use fiction and nonfiction
interchangeably to make any point. Moreover, I *never*
posted any articles or anything else on any Veterans
newsgroup until I was attacked on that newsgroup with
defamation, lies and preposterous and defaming
misrepresentations of what the cabal was falsely claiming I
had written in the past.
Brooks Goes on to say:
Brooks Says:
Nigel Brooks
http://tinyurl.com/rhlvz
Third: Brooks and his fellow gang member SteveL posted
endless posts that we removed posts to hide them. But when I
proved we removed them due to errors and typos and other
mistakes, Brooks was cornered. He could not admit he and his
gang had been defaming, stalking and harassing me for years
over just a few typos and errors, so he came up with his BS
formula for deciding whether someone removed a post due to a
lie or an error based upon his own, self-serving ridiculous,
goofy, skewed, pejorative, mathematically absurd and
completely ludicrous "only two errors are allowed in
twenty-thousand posts" formula.
Consider the math of Brooks goofy "excuse" for his and
SteveL's fraudulent claim the posts we removed were to hide
lies and not simply because they contained errors or
misstatements:
Twenty-Thousand (20,000) posts with an average of 500 words
per post (that is probably light but a good number to use)
indicates TEN MILLION WORDS!
Brooks claims that only a maximum of two errors could be
made in those ten million words before anyone should believe
that we removed posts due to errors. That means Brooks is
claiming that all that post on USENET (including him and his
gang members) must make less than .00002% errors! And if
they remove posts from the Google archive that have a higher
percentage of typos and errors than .00002%, *then,
according to Brooks own statements and formula above, all
those posts removed were to hide previous lies!*
If I remember correctly, out of the twenty-thousand Doug
Grant (Tm) posts that Brooks has reviewed, he has found only
four or five glaring typo type errors that we admitted were
errors and then were consequently removed from the Google
archive. That represents only about .00005% errors in total.
Here is an interesting challenge for all:
Peter Vaughan Shaver, Esq.
SOUND ADVICE, LLC
Doug Grant (Tm) DGVReiman.
"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in
message
news:u9-dnYFaRYTil-nY...@giganews.com...
> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 18:37:21 -0600, "Nigel Brooks"
> <nbr...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
>>Not only the strawman strategy but did you also note the
>>following in Mr.
>>Reiman's latest rant:
>>
>>"I nor any members of my group do not and have never
>>claimed to be reporters
>>nor journalists - we are simply bloggers, writers that
>>express their
>>subjective opinions with a literary license to use fiction
>>and nonfiction
>>interchangeably to make any point. Moreover, I *never*
>>posted any articles
>>or anything else on any Veterans newsgroup until I was
>>attacked on that
>>newsgroup with defamation, lies and preposterous and
>>defaming
>>misrepresentations of what the cabal was falsely claiming
>>I had written in
>>the past."
>>
Doug Says: Rebuttal to SteveL lies. First, stop trying to
hide my rebuttals. Your constant attempt to hide the truth
only proves you are a desperate liar. Don't worry, you will
be given ample opportunity to present your case in court.
>>
>>Not suprisingly Mr. Reiman's assertion that "I nor any
>>members of my group
>>do not and have never claimed to be reporters nor
>>journalists' appears to
>>an inaccurate statement.
Doug Says. Rebuttal: The key point above was that I never
posted anything on any Veterans newsgroup before the Nigel
Brooks attacks. And then only when I was forced to defend
myself. The lie that I voluntarily came to AWV or any other
veterans newsgroup and made claims about my past miltiary
service is complete and total lie and fraud. Since you
tried to ignore that key point no doubt you want to
obfuscate it, so I thought I would mention it again. See
above for the details on this issue.
In regards to press credentials, that only means I have
press access to various news reporting groups you moron.
None of my articles are presented as pure news articles,
they are all, as anyone can read knows, subjective
editorials as are described below:
I nor any members of my group do not and have never claimed
to be reporters nor journalists - we are simply bloggers,
writers that express their subjective opinions with a
literary license to use fiction and nonfiction
interchangeably to make any point. Moreover, I *never*
posted any articles or anything else on any Veterans
newsgroup until I was attacked on that newsgroup with
defamation.
I wonder when SteveL is going to furnish the name of his
lawyer like he promised to do - has he been caught in mid
lie yet again?
Doug Grant (Tm)
SteveL
wrote:
I didn't hide anything. You did. I merely put the full post back where
it belongs, not you edited version of what Nigel said.
> Second, I
>see no joke, no sarcasm, from Nigel
You wouldn't.....
>, no BWAAAA, no Ha Ha, I
>see a clear, unmistakable confession of Brooks that he
>clearly knew that others had written posts he and you
>fraudulently attributed to me. Trying to excuse his
>confession with desperate whines won't convince anyone.
>Moreover, there is confirmation. So stop trying to hide,
>you will have your day in court, and you can tell the Judge
I hope it costs a lot to track me down.
>how you also can read minds and you knew what Nigel meant.
How can you, idiot.!????
That's exactly what *you''re* trying to do except you're misreading it
(deliberately or are you autisitic?) with no take on emotional
context.
You really need a "hahaha" to determine intent?
What a pathetic fool you are.
>Even his acknowledgement of the fact he knew that others
>were involved in our account, and the 71archived posts that
>proved that fact, proves his and your claims are false and
>your and his intent was to harass and cyberstalk. If you
>disagree, tell it to the Judge.
<snicker> What a maroon.
>
>Doug Grant (Tm)
>>
SteveL
wrote:
<snip>>
>"SteveL" <stev...@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in
>message
>news:FY-dnfBr5-CA3e7Y...@giganews.com...
>> On Sun, 3 Dec 2006 14:48:01 -0500, "DGVREIMAN"
>> <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>NIGEL BROOKS - SECTION OSCAR - PART II - REBUTTAL TO NIGEL
>>>BROOKS LIES ABOUT MY MILITARY SERVICE AND PREPOSTEROUS
>>>MATH
>>>
>>>
>Doug Says: Rebuttal. You cannot hide the truth SteveL.
I can't the truth. You never provide any.
>Name of your lawyer please - or are you going to lie about
>that issue some more?
I never said I'd tell you my lawyer's name.
> If you want to rant and rave about
>"Straw men" then change the subject title.
Stop using them in lieu of evidence and I'll stop calling you on it.
Nigel Brooks
Well here's one where he said he was a "qualified press member" - stand by
for an attempt to skew the plain meaning of the post and it's relevant
history ( with grateful acknowledgement to the decision of the third circuit
court of appeals):
From: "DGVREIMAN" <dgg...@worldnet.att.net>
Newsgroups: alt.news-media,alt.politics
References: <EvGT8.61245$LC3.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<Xns923DB882BE501...@204.127.36.1>
<5j0U8.63255$LC3.4...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<Xns923EAFAA6591F...@204.127.36.1>
<4l7U8.71501$UT.49...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
<Xns923ECD5CF611D...@204.127.36.1>
Subject: Re: ONE HUNDRED MILLION $ TO PLO!
Message-ID: <o4jU8.72272$UT.50...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:49:56 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.82.138.77
X-Complaints-To: ab...@worldnet.att.net
X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1025621396 12.82.138.77 (Tue, 02
Jul 2002 14:49:56 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 14:49:56 GMT
Organization: AT&T Worldnet
"I have posted facts reported by the wire services which I receive (I am a
qualified press member) that have been proved untrue later, and I have then
printed a retraction. Also, if my preliminary research indicates a certain
fact, and then subsequent research indicates my preliminary research
conclusion
was false, I also post that I was wrong in my first post."
--
Nigel Brooks
John Agosta
I seem to read that Mr. Reiman is contradicting himself.
How do you explain this, Doug ?
Those are your words, are they not ?
Tankfixer
DGVR...@COMCAST.NET mumbled
> Although in normal cases your statement above might be true,
> it does not apply to gang or mob stalking and defamation
> which Mr. Shaver has dealt with extensively before. (BTW Mr.
> Shaver is in Singapore and won't return until December 4th).
>
Check your calender, you posted this on the 5th.