Dai Dummy=Combat Walter Mitty
DGVREIMAN
"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Dai-Uy-B8F01A....@news-lb-02.socal.rr.com...
> In article <Pq6dnSc_arv...@comcast.com>,
> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>
> More delusions. Now he tells us about leadership. Doug,
> you were
> a personnel sergeant. Spare us your Walter Mitty fantasies.
Doug Says: Moron, the more you post about the US Army the more
we realize how little you know about it. You admit I was posted
to the 1/27 in the 25th Infantry Division, but then out of the
same side of your lying mouth you claim I was a Personnel
Sergeant for that unit. The problem is that anyone that was ever
in the US Army knows that the 1/27th, at any level, Company,
Battalion or Brigade, does not have ANY slots for any Personnel
Sergeants. You also lied about me not being in the Tet
offensive, not being in Vietnam, and a host of other outright
lies and goofy fabrications that have been exposed for what they
clearly are, outright lies and fraud. You also admit that I was
assigned to a Station as a Station Commander for a Recruiting
Station, but those stations ALSO do not have any slots for
Personnel Sergeants, and I was never awarded a Recruiting MOS.
Psycho Dai, in the US Army, (apparently not the Army you were
ever in or your brain is so damaged you do not remember it)
Soldiers pull all kinds of duty different from their primary MOS.
When I was assigned to the 25th Infantry Division it did not need
any personnel sergeants. It was at the time desperate for combat
qualified NCO's and junior officers since it was during the Tet
Offensive. I held a combat infantryman's MOS for about four
years, worked as a Combat Infantryman in Korea (and as a FOB) was
highly qualified in all types of light weapons (2nd highest rife
expert score in my entire battalion - and 2nd by only one miss)
and I had combat infantryman training in the US Marine Corps
before I even joined the US Army. Now guess what duty I was
pulling when I first arrived in Vietnam? DUH! Even your pea
brain should be able to figure that out. In fact, after watching
your claims that you never did anything worth a story in Vietnam,
and that you guarded lonely borders, I suspect that I have seen
at least ten times more combat in Vietnam than you.
Now here are two other very simple questions for you to answer:
(I will keep them simple due to your obvious mental cognitive
problems about the US Army and service therein). The 1/27th
is strictly a combat unit. It does not have any slots for
personnel sergeants, but it does have dozens of slots for NCO's
to operate in a combat role that have qualifications for
Infantry. In fact, during that 1968 tet offensive period, the
25th Headquarters published a letter requesting non-combat
related primary MOS's to volunteer to function in combat roles.
Now if you want to continue to lie about my assignments in
Vietnam, please, tell us how did I serve as a personnel sergeant
in the 1/27th when that unit does not have any, not is authorized
any, never had any, never will have any, personnel sergeants?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
No wonder some other posters nicknamed this moron "Psycho." The
only "Walter Mitty" around here is Psycho Dai.
Moreover, you were never even in Vietnam in 1968-69 - and you
were never even assigned to the 25th or any other Infantry
Division. You were a "border guard" by your own admission. So
cut the bull Psycho Dai, your lies and misrepresentations and
libel are obvious.
(Note that I am posting this on alt.military as well as other
newsgroups in the expectation that others assigned to the 25th at
the same time I was assigned will come forward and set this
goofball Psycho Dai straight on this issue).
Everyone in the 25th Infantry Division that I know of during the
Tet offensive months (Jan-June 1968) (except medical personnel)
pulled their share of patrols, bunker line guard duty,
reactionary force participation, perimeter patrols outside and
inside the perimeter of Cu Chi, Dau Tieng and Tay Ninh city and
in forward Fire Bases as well. In many of my patrols there
existed all kinds of different MOS's, clerks, bakers, cooks, S-3
types, 11B's and even dismounted tank crew members, truck
drivers, etc. In fact, the two men I mentioned were wounded in
one of my patrols, Olsen and Nelson, neither had Combat MOS's -
are you claiming they were never in combat as well? Hard to
admit they were in combat (they both received Purple Hearts on
that patrol) and then out of the other side your you lying mouth
claim that their NCO that was leading them on that patrol (me)
was not in combat! At least one of those said three 25th
Infantry bases during that period was attacked almost every night
Psycho Dai. So how much combat was I in? Enough to last me a
lifetime, and probably at least ten times more than you.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Doug Reese
DGVREIMAN wrote:
> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Dai-Uy-B8F01A....@news-lb-02.socal.rr.com...
> > In article <Pq6dnSc_arv...@comcast.com>,
> > "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> >
> > More delusions. Now he tells us about leadership. Doug,
> > you were
> > a personnel sergeant. Spare us your Walter Mitty fantasies.
Right -- he'd rather fantasize about those little girls . . . and boys.
Right Doug?
Doug (the other -- the one who doesn't molest children)
The rest of the ramblings of this nutcase deleted
Dai Uy
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> So how much combat was I in? Enough to last me a
> lifetime, and probably at least ten times more than you.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
Repost of some facts you continue to ignore:
REPOST:
1.    On October 6, 2001 Douglas Reiman posted the following:
 "When I was in Vietnam, stationed in Can Tho I witnessed two ambulances
drive through our main gate, calmly drive to our airport, drive on the
tarmac and while driving down the tarmac Viet Cong contained in the
ambulances shot each plane on the tarmac with a M-79 grenade
launcher.  Then when they were through, they simply drove out the back
gate and down the road. This was a "drive-by" on an airport! These six
or seven Viet Cong, equipped with simple weapons (that look like big
shotguns) destroyed an entire American Army air base in about five
minutes! "
Comment:
 During December 1967, the enemy gained entrance to the Can Tho Army Air
Field by utilizing an ARVN ambulance - they were able to destroy a
number of aircraft and managed to escape.
Reiman  was not in Can Tho during 1967  - but was there during January
1969. In the January 13, 1969 attack  - the enemy infiltrated the Can
Tho Army Air Field though the wire in an area where there was a
ditch.  The attack began at approximately 2:00 a.m. and the enemy were
successful in destroying a number of aircraft on the flight line.  When
challenged - Reiman has claimed that he witnessed the attack from the
roof of his BEQ (The Melton) and that he had also been told of the
circumstances of the attack by MP's. Interestingly, when challenged as
to whether or not he had fabricated the incident and was merely
regurgitating the December 1967 attack - a number of postings surfaced
on the newsgroup alt.vietnam.veterans on May 17, 2005. These postings
from R.smitty, Willsboy, Jaymiller and a SgtFisher spoke to the January
13, 1969 attack and were in support of the writers claims that
ambulances were used in the attack. But the facts of the attack on
January 13, 1969 are undeniable - there were no ambulances used by the
enemy to gain entry to the Can Tho Army Air Field. The attack as
described by the "eyewitness" simply never happened. The interesting
thing about the postings is that with one exception, none of the posters
appears to have ever posted on USENET previously. It is also of note
that in other forums, the writer has previously been suspected of using
multiple identities to bolster claims on those forums and in fact has
sometimes forgotten to remove his signature from the bottom of the post
(as in the case of a posting by a person identifying themselves as Dr
Profe).
2.  On May 21, 1998 Mr. Reiman wrote the following:
" I think I was wrong a few times.  I certainly was wrong when I
volunteered for my second tour in Vietnam.  And I was wrong to think the
VC that fired at me would not hit me.
On September 12, 2001 he wrote:
" War is a terrible thing to behold. I know, I fought in one for a very
long time, and I was wounded and almost lost my life. "
and on October 24 2001 he wrote:
"  I abhor war, having fought and wounded in Vietnam.  I know its ugly
face....close up. "
Comment:
Yet a thorough review of Mr. Reiman's military records reveals that he
has never been awarded the Purple Heart - of course Mr. Reiman's initial
boast where he said he was wrong to think that the VC that fired at him
would not hit him is rather ambiguous and subject to interpretation -
only Reiman knows exactly what he means when he types words onto the
screen.
3.  On December 23, 2004 Mr. Reiman wrote:
 "Sp4 Olson received a mortal wound in his liver that night, and Sp4
Nelson was wounded in the arm."
On March 4, 2005 he said:
"  Look again Nigel, you are lying or stupid, one or the other.  He was
hit on that mission I was on and as I described, which hospital he was
in when he eventually died I do not remember, but I do know where he was
hit that night, and I also know his name is on the Wall Nigel.  Stop
lying and distorting the truth, now you are even trying to denigrate a
brave dead solider and his family. "
And on March 5 he said:
 "Much later, I had a few beers with Nelson later on a Vung Tau beach
when we were both on R&R and Nelson also was under the impression
that  Olsen died of his wounds. But because Brooks could not find a
record of Olsen's death at Cu Chi, Brooks tried to denigrate this true
story. Olsen was medevacted out like all soldiers with extremely serious
wounds were. I don't know where they sent him, but probably to Long
Binh, Japan or to the States.
"
Comment:
The Combat Area Current Casualty File (CACCF) and Coffelt Data Base has
no record of a Spec 4 Olson or Olsen having been killed at the Cu Chi
base during June 1968. The writer was assigned to Co D, 1st Bn 27th
Infantry, 25th Division.  The only SP4 Olson assigned to Co D who was
killed in Vietnam was Carl Andrew Olson died  - November
13,1969.  Reiman was not in Vietnam in November 1969.
4.  On March 28, 2002 Reiman said:
"  No, (1) I do not live in a fantasy world, apparently you do.  If you
want a few names of battles in which the Media was on site and
broadcasting our every move, it would harder to list the ones in which
the media was NOT present in Vietnam than listing the ones in which our
battle plans were being broadcast openly.  (1) Hobo Woods (2) Au Shaw
Valley (3) Tet 1968 (4) Battle for Hue (5) May Iron Triangle  Offensive
1969...etc  Those were some of the battles I *personally* was involved,
and I *personally* watched and heard the "newsboys" broadcast our
tactics . "
***** I just have to know, did you carry your personal TV set on
operation? .....and the generator?
Comment:
 Military records indicate that the writer served in Vietnam from
February 1968 until April 1969.  The writer held an MOS of Personnel
Sergeant with the 25th Infantry Division at Cu Chi and 51st Maintenance
Company at Can Tho.  The Hobo woods are in the vicinity of Cu Chi and
were part of the operational area for the 25th Division - the writer
arrived in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive, however there is no
indication in the records that he ever participated in any "battles" in
Hue or the A Shaw Valley. Both of those locations were under the
operational control of other units and were some distance from either Cu
Chi or Can Tho.  The 25th Division was never involved in any battles for
Hue or A Shaw.  Reiman has subsequently sought to explain his "personal
involvment as having processed the paperwork of people who were
reassigned to those units".
There is a complete review of the usenet claims located at the  tangled
web website.
Your tooo funny Doug.
Is that you Jones? You win. This has been the best troll ever!
Mac
Thank you for your review of just a few of the postings from the
Amazing!, Fantastic! Doug 'the OCS "Butter-Bar" Grant vonReiman...
I imagine the FATUOUS guy often forgets the lies he has spewed forth
over the years... HOWEVER, regarding the following:
QUOTE :
On September 12, 2001 he wrote:
" War is a terrible thing to behold. I know, I fought in one for a
very long time, and I was wounded and almost lost my life. "
CLOSE QUOTES
If it was that serious then there would have been at least a Purple
Heart AND if it was serious enough that he almost lost his life there
should be a record of hospitalization.
But, then, again, consider how desperately that FOIA was blocked; even
partially... but what has come out already is just a tad at odds with
some of the Amazing! and Fantastic! tales issuing forth from the
"Butter-Bar"...
---Mac
DGVREIMAN
Doug Says: First, Dai Dippy, please at least try to be honest -
show some sembalance of brain waves.
The attack I witnessed from the top of the Melton Hotel occured
in 1969 not in 1967. What happened in 1967 had nothing to do
with the 1969 attack. Duh.
Next Duh: Please post (with Google URL archive) *Everything* I
said about me watching this attack unfold. Stop taking one
element of what I say out of context, then dishonestly try to
discredit it.
Next Duh: Where were you at the time? Officer's club at Ft.
Benning? Supply Room? You were not even in Vietnam during this
attack and you sure as hell were not next to me in Can Tho when I
was watching it! All you are doing is reporting from after
action reports that (1) are known to be only 25% accurate in
general terms (just ask Hanoi John Kerry about those "after
action reports") and 100% innaccuarate when it comes to the
details of the attack.
Next Duh: Please tell us about the attack that was occurring on
the Secrect POW camp located at the end of the Can Tho runway.
The vehicles went down the runway and tried to attack the POW
camp and free their comrades. But that is not in the After
Action Report because the location of that camp was Top Secret
and you will ONLY find mention of that attack which was occurring
at the same time as the tarmac attack (the tarmac attack was
probably a diversion for the POW camp or vice versa) in the
classified reports.
Final Duh: Dai Dork, you were not there, I was. I said much of
what I learned about the ambulances were related to me by MP's
that witnessed them. I could see there were vehicles involved in
the attack, but I could not tell what kind from the top of the
Melton Hotel a few miles away.
So cut the bull Dai Dumbo, you are just making a bigger fool out
of yourself than normal, if that is possible. You were not
there, I was. Period. End of story.
> >
> 2. On May 21, 1998 Mr. Reiman wrote the following:
>
> " I think I was wrong a few times. I certainly was wrong when I
> volunteered for my second tour in Vietnam. And I was wrong to
> think the
> VC that fired at me would not hit me.
Doug Says: Please post the Google URL archive for what you are
claiming I said, in context, and I will reply. Taking statements
out of context or taking statements I did not say or write is
dishonest and fraudulent Dai Dorko. You are taking passages from
an account that I did not even own, that 40 other people wrote
under, and four other typists wrote under, and attributing
everything said in that account to me personally. I might have
said the above and if I did so what? But I cannot be sure until
you post the Google URL. Anyone that thinks the enemy will miss
all the time is wrong and whistling through a graveyard - which
seems to be the point of the passage above. So what is your
pathetic point Psycho Dai? Duh?
>
> On September 12, 2001 he wrote:
>
> " War is a terrible thing to behold. I know, I fought in one
> for a very
> long time, and I was wounded and almost lost my life. "
Doug Says: Please post the Google URL archive for what you are
claiming I said, in context, and I will reply. Taking statements
out of context or taking statements I did not say or write is
dishonest and fraudulent Dai Dorko. You are taking passages from
an account that I did not even own, that 40 other people wrote
under, and four other typists wrote under, and attributing
everything said in that account to me personally. I might have
said the above and if I did so what? But I cannot be sure until
you post the Google URL.
But it seems the point of the out-of-context statement above is
that the person writing that paragraph said he was wounded, and
he almost lost his life in a war. I would say that most people
that were in a war that especially were in combat almost lost
their lives several times. I note there is an "and" after the
wounded statement, so the loss of life statement was not
connected to the wound statement. If the author of the out of
context statement above had said : "I was wounded and that wound
almost cost me my life" that would have been a completely
different context. But just claiming that people that fight wars
and live almost lose their lives in that war is a general
statement that can be applied to all that ever fought a war. So
what is your pathetic point about this out-of-context quip Psycho
Dai Dumbo? More bullshit? More false interpretations? Duh.
You are bent on making a complete fool out of yourself I see.
>
> and on October 24 2001 he wrote:
>
> " I abhor war, having fought and wounded in Vietnam. I know its
> ugly
> face....close up. "
>
Doug Says: Please post the Google URL archive for what you are
claiming I said, in context, and I will reply. Taking statements
out of context or taking statements I did not say or write is
dishonest and fraudulent Dai Dorko. You are taking passages from
an account that I did not even own, that 40 other people wrote
under, and four other typists wrote under, and attributing
everything said in that account to me personally. I might have
said the above and if I did so what? But I cannot be sure until
you post the Google URL.
> Comment:
> Yet a thorough review of Mr. Reiman's military records reveals
> that he
> has never been awarded the Purple Heart - of course Mr.
> Reiman's initial
> boast where he said he was wrong to think that the VC that
> fired at him
> would not hit him is rather ambiguous and subject to
> interpretation -
> only Reiman knows exactly what he means when he types words
> onto the
> screen.
Doug Says: First, you have not seen my military medical records.
You do not have a clue about what you are talking about as usual.
I will say that tiny wounds were not pursued for purple hearts in
the units I served in. If you got some scratches or even skin
wounds from shrapnel or from bits of metal or gravel flying from
explosions or rounds fired you did not whine for "purple hearts"
like commissioned officers did. If I wanted a purple heart I
would ask the Board of Military Corrections for it. I asked them
once if my CO had signed the forms for that medal and they
replied and said he did not (Probably because I left Vietnam
suddenly on Emergency leave and never returned). So it was left
up to me to pursue deserved medals and I never put much stock in
medals as we all know how they were passed out to officers such
as Hanoi John Kerry. But now that you are making an issue out of
it, I think I will pursue it.
Also, first you claim you have never seen my records or my DD214,
now you claim "after a thorough review" of my records you
concluded...How did you "thoroughly review" my records when you
claim you never even saw them? Also, Dai Deceiver, please tell
us about the more than 300 documents the US Army did not furnish
your gang member BS Brooks in respect to his FOIA request?
(Brooks admits to 54 documents the US Army withheld, but by my
count, including the board of corrections, there are more than
300). So how can you complete a thorough review of my records
when (1) you claim you never ever saw them (2) if you are lying
about not seeing them the most you could have seen is about one
third of my records and none of my medical records. So how do
you do your "thorough reviews" again Dai Dippywad? Crystal
balls? Voodoo? Star Gazing? Bullshit? I think the later. You
have been caught again in mid deception Dai Deceiver, and you are
losing what little credibility you ever had with your witch hunts
and obvious defaming smear tactics and lies.
As an example: I was hospitalized in Vietnam for about ten days.
Tell us the Hospital I was in and the reason for the
Hospitalization. Since you have completed a "thorough review" of
my records you certainly should be able to answer that question
Dai Dopey. No? That is what I thought. All bullshit and no
substance as usual from Dai Dumbass.
>
> 3. On December 23, 2004 Mr. Reiman wrote:
>
> "Sp4 Olson received a mortal wound in his liver that night, and
> Sp4
> Nelson was wounded in the arm."
Doug Says: Please post the Google URL archive for what you are
claiming I said, in context, and I will reply. Taking statements
out of context or taking statements I did not say or write is
dishonest and fraudulent Dai Dorko. You are taking passages from
an account that I did not even own, that 40 other people wrote
under, and four other typists wrote under, and attributing
everything said in that account to me personally. I might have
said the above and if I did so what? But I cannot be sure until
you post the Google URL.
You need to post the rest of what I said about Olsen and Nelson
getting wounded that night Dai Dopey. Why take this out of
context, then lie about it? I said I was told that Olsen later
died of his wounds by Nelson. I did not confirm that to be true
or not. I do know he was seriously wounded that night, and I
visited him in the hospital the next day and they said he did not
look like he would make it and they were med evacing him out. I
saw Nelson several times after that patrol and he told me on one
of those occasions that Olsen had died of his wounds. But he
might have died months later, I don't know. But I do know they
were both in my patrol when they were hit. Hard for me not to be
in combat when the record shows that at least two of my men
received purple hearts for combat related wounds when I was
leading them on a patrol now doesn't Dai Bullshiter? Once again,
Psycho Dai proved a liar. What fun eh! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> On March 4, 2005 he said:
>
> " Look again Nigel, you are lying or stupid, one or the other.
> He was
> hit on that mission I was on and as I described, which hospital
> he was
> in when he eventually died I do not remember, but I do know
> where he was
> hit that night, and I also know his name is on the Wall Nigel.
> Stop
> lying and distorting the truth, now you are even trying to
> denigrate a
> brave dead solider and his family. "
Doug Says: Please post the Google URL archive for what you are
claiming I said, in context, and I will reply. Taking statements
out of context or taking statements I did not say or write is
dishonest and fraudulent Dai Dorko. You are taking passages from
an account that I did not even own, that 40 other people wrote
under, and four other typists wrote under, and attributing
everything said in that account to me personally. I might have
said the above and if I did so what? But I cannot be sure until
you post the Google URL.
You need to post the rest of what I said about Olsen and Nelson
getting wounded that night Dai Dopey. Why take this out of
context, then lie about it? I said I was told that Olsen later
died of his wounds by Nelson. I did not confirm that to be true
or not. I do know he was seriously wounded that night, and I
visited him in the hospital the next day and they said he did not
look like he would make it and they were med evacing him out. I
saw Nelson several times after that patrol and he told me on one
of those occasions that Olsen had died of his wounds. But he
might have died months later, I don't know. But I do know they
were both in my patrol when they were hit. Hard for me not to be
in combat when the record shows that at least two of my men
received purple hearts for combat related wounds when I was
leading them on a patrol now doesn't Dai Bullshiter? Once again,
Psycho Dai proved a liar. What fun eh! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> And on March 5 he said:
>
> "Much later, I had a few beers with Nelson later on a Vung Tau
> beach
> when we were both on R&R and Nelson also was under the
> impression
> that Olsen died of his wounds. But because Brooks could not
> find a
> record of Olsen's death at Cu Chi, Brooks tried to denigrate
> this true
> story. Olsen was medevacted out like all soldiers with
> extremely serious
> wounds were. I don't know where they sent him, but probably to
> Long
> Binh, Japan or to the States.
> "
Doug Says: Please post the Google URL archive for what you are
claiming I said, in context, and I will reply. Taking statements
out of context or taking statements I did not say or write is
dishonest and fraudulent Dai Dorko. You are taking passages from
an account that I did not even own, that 40 other people wrote
under, and four other typists wrote under, and attributing
everything said in that account to me personally. I might have
said the above and if I did so what? But I cannot be sure until
you post the Google URL.
You need to post the rest of what I said about Olsen and Nelson
getting wounded that night Dai Dopey. Why take this out of
context, then lie about it? I said I was told that Olsen later
died of his wounds by Nelson. I did not confirm that to be true
or not. I do know he was seriously wounded that night, and I
visited him in the hospital the next day and they said he did not
look like he would make it and they were med evacing him out. I
saw Nelson several times after that patrol and he told me on one
of those occasions that Olsen had died of his wounds. But he
might have died months later, I don't know. But I do know they
were both in my patrol when they were hit. Hard for me not to be
in combat when the record shows that at least two of my men
received purple hearts for combat related wounds when I was
leading them on a patrol now doesn't Dai Bullshiter? Once again,
Psycho Dai proved a liar. What fun eh! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>
> Comment:
> The Combat Area Current Casualty File (CACCF) and Coffelt Data
> Base has
> no record of a Spec 4 Olson or Olsen having been killed at the
> Cu Chi
> base during June 1968. The writer was assigned to Co D, 1st Bn
> 27th
> Infantry, 25th Division. The only SP4 Olson assigned to Co D
> who was
> killed in Vietnam was Carl Andrew Olson died - November
> 13,1969. Reiman was not in Vietnam in November 1969.
Doug Says: Please post the Google URL archive for what you are
claiming I said, in context, and I will reply. Taking statements
out of context or taking statements I did not say or write is
dishonest and fraudulent Dai Dorko. You are taking passages from
an account that I did not even own, that 40 other people wrote
under, and four other typists wrote under, and attributing
everything said in that account to me personally. I might have
said the above and if I did so what? But I cannot be sure until
you post the Google URL.
You need to post the rest of what I said about Olsen and Nelson
getting wounded that night Dai Dopey. Why take this out of
context, then lie about it? I said I was told that Olsen later
died of his wounds by Nelson. I did not confirm that to be true
or not. I do know he was seriously wounded that night, and I
visited him in the hospital the next day and they said he did not
look like he would make it and they were med evacing him out. I
saw Nelson several times after that patrol and he told me on one
of those occasions that Olsen had died of his wounds. But he
might have died months later, I don't know. But I do know they
were both in my patrol when they were hit. Hard for me not to be
in combat when the record shows that at least two of my men
received purple hearts for combat related wounds when I was
leading them on a patrol now doesn't Dai Bullshiter? Once again,
Psycho Dai proved a liar. What fun eh! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Also, if Olsen did not die that night, which he didn't, then he
would not be listed as a causality for that day in question. So
stop the lying Dai Dweeb. Moreover, your claim that every
soldier that I led on patrol or in a reactionary force had to be
from the same unit I was assigned to is beyond stupidity, it is
indicative that perhaps you were never in the US Army! There
were all kinds of different MOS's and guys from many different
units on those patrols and reactionary forces during the Tet
offensive in the 25th Infantry Psycho Dai Dippeo.
>
> 4. On March 28, 2002 Reiman said:
>
> " No, (1) I do not live in a fantasy world, apparently you do.
> If you
> want a few names of battles in which the Media was on site and
> broadcasting our every move, it would harder to list the ones
> in which
> the media was NOT present in Vietnam than listing the ones in
> which our
> battle plans were being broadcast openly. (1) Hobo Woods (2) Au
> Shaw
> Valley (3) Tet 1968 (4) Battle for Hue (5) May Iron Triangle
> Offensive
> 1969...etc Those were some of the battles I *personally* was
> involved,
> and I *personally* watched and heard the "newsboys" broadcast
> our
> tactics . "
>
>
Doug Says: Please post the Google URL archive for what you are
claiming I said, in context, and I will reply. Taking statements
out of context or taking statements I did not say or write is
dishonest and fraudulent Dai Dorko. You are taking passages from
an account that I did not even own, that 40 other people wrote
under, and four other typists wrote under, and attributing
everything said in that account to me personally. I might have
said the above and if I did so what? But I cannot be sure until
you post the Google URL.
Although I cannot be sure who wrote the above until you post the
Google URL so I can read it in context (taking information out of
context so you can lie about it is doing nothing for your
dwindling credibility Dai Dillyweb). It is clear that whatever
this person was saying was true. If he was in Vietnam during
those offensives he certainly was *involved* in them, and no
doubt those campaigns were covered by the media. The author of
the above certainly did not say he *fought* in each of those
campaings. So what is your point Dai DumDum? That you are an
idiot? If that is your point you have made it very well.
>
> ***** I just have to know, did you carry your personal TV
> set on
> operation? .....and the generator?
Doug Says: Since your question does not even apply to the above
passage or quip, only you know what the hell you are talking
about. I will say this, I never had a personal TV set or a
personal Generator in Vietnam. I know those things were common
to your officer's clubs, along with air conditioning, but I never
was afforded that luxury. I was a senior NCO in Vietnam, I
worked for a living remember?
>
>
>
> Comment:
> Military records indicate that the writer served in Vietnam
> from
> February 1968 until April 1969. The writer held an MOS of
> Personnel
> Sergeant with the 25th Infantry Division at Cu Chi and 51st
> Maintenance
> Company at Can Tho.
Doug Says: Another lie from Dai Dipwad. The 1/27th infantry
unit I was assigned in with the 25th did not have any slots nor
positions for any personnel sergeants. Dai Dippy has been caught
lying again. Moreover, as mentioned Psycho Dai Dabby has never
seen more than two thirds of my records, and in fact, he has
previously claimed he has never seen any of them! So is he lying
now, or did he lie then? He is hard to figure he lies so damn
much. In fact, Company D, was not even permanently located at Cu
Chi, and even that Psycho Dai Dummy didn't know. Not to mention
the fact the 51st Maintenance Company at Can Tho ALSO did not
have any slots or positions for a "Personnel Sergeant>" so once
again, we catch ol Dai Deceiver in mid bullshit about my military
service.
The Hobo woods are in the vicinity of Cu Chi and
> were part of the operational area for the 25th Division - the
> writer
> arrived in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive, however there is
> no
> indication in the records that he ever participated in any
> "battles" in
> Hue or the A Shaw Valley.
Doug Says: That is a lie of course. Please tell us Dai Dorko,
what records you have reviewed of mine, and where on those
records would it list every "battle" or encounter with the enemy
I ever participated in? Since NONE of the records your chum BS
Brooks received from the FOIA request indicates any such
information, you claiming that such information "does not exist
in my records" is nothing more than an obvious attempt to defame,
distort, lie, use false representations and outright lies for the
clear and unmistakable purpose of defamation and libel. Nice try
Psycho Dai, but you have been caught right in mid con once again.
Moreover, first you lied about what battles I claimed I
participated in, then you lied about what military records show
or do not show, is there anything you forgot to lie about? Oh
Yeah, how you and your smear merchant gang are so obvious in your
attempts to defame, smear, lie and distort the truth.
Both of those locations were under the
> operational control of other units and were some distance from
> either Cu
> Chi or Can Tho. The 25th Division was never involved in any
> battles for
> Hue or A Shaw. Reiman has subsequently sought to explain his
> "personal
> involvment as having processed the paperwork of people who were
> reassigned to those units".
Doug Says: Another lie. I said I was "involved" in those
campaigns, and I was. I never said I fought in them. So what
you and BS Brooks are doing is once again substuting a completely
different context for what was really said, then of course you
lie, distort, con, lie, fabricate and embellish your own lies to
a point that you can find a way to defame your smear victim.
Your honesty and veracty and ethics are akin to a billy goats, or
a Vietnamese whore, or both. Nothing you have said or claimed
even resembles the truth, as I have so adoitly pointed out in
this post and as I will continue to point out in any future
smears and lies you and your chums post about me. I will no
longer take your defamation campaigns based upon distortions,
fabrications, forgeries, fraud, lies, half-truths, out-of-context
lies, and then the distortion of my records as they apply to your
lies and fabrications without a response proving you and your con
man friends are precisely what I said they are, con men and
frauds. Now seen if you can sell some more banner ads with your
smears and lies after the world leans the truth about you and
your smear merchant gang.
>
> There is a complete review of the usenet claims located at the
> tangled
> web website.
>
>
>
> Your tooo funny Doug.
>
> Is that you Jones? You win. This has been the best
> troll ever!
Doug Says: If that is what is located on the mysterious "smear
for profit" web site that uses fraud, lies, distortions,
fabrications, forgeries to make money from banner ads and to sell
products, then it has been revealed for what it really is, lies,
fraud, distortions, fabrications and forgeries. No wonder BS
Brooks and company wanted to hide all those forgeries, fraud and
lies from me. They did not want me to respond to such libel and
lies as they knew I could easily prove BS Brooks and Dipshit Dai
the liars, distorters, fabricators and smear merchants they
clearly are. Thanks for revealing this information, now the
truth can be told.
Doug Grant (Tm)
Dai Uy
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> Doug Says: The author of
> the above certainly did not say he *fought* in each of those
> campaings.
No, you said you were "involved." Just what did your involvement
consist of?
> So what is your point Dai DumDum? That you are an
> idiot? If that is your point you have made it very well.
> >
> > ***** I just have to know, did you carry your personal TV
> > set on
> > operation? .....and the generator?
>
> Doug Says: Since your question does not even apply to the above
> passage or quip, only you know what the hell you are talking
> about.
You do have a problem with reading comprehension. Explain what you
meant when you said:
> > (1) Hobo Woods (2) Au Shaw Valley (3) Tet 1968 (4) Battle for
> > Hue (5) May Iron Triangle Offensive 1969...etc
> > Those were some of the battles I *personally* was involved,
> > and I *personally* watched and heard the "newsboys" broadcast
> > our tactics . "
If, as you say, you were "involved", how did you find the
oportunity to locate a TV in order to watch and hear the newsboys
broadcast anything. I dare say there was no TV watching going on at any
of those engagements.
"Fought."
"Involved."
Is that how you think you can weasel out of this. Face it, you've
been caught in another of your bogus "combat" lies.
You lose.
It was fun playing.......
You are a fraud.
Dai Uy
> The attack I witnessed from the top of the Melton Hotel occured
> in 1969 not in 1967.
Exactly. That's what we've said all along.
The attack you "described" occurred in 1967 not in 1969. Simple
mistake.
Read carefully. See if you can understand.
Comment:
During December 1967, the enemy gained entrance to the Can Tho
Army Air Field by utilizing an ARVN ambulance - they were able to
destroy a number of aircraft and managed to escape.
Reiman was not in Can Tho during 1967- but was there during January
1969. In the January 13, 1969 attack- the enemy infiltrated the Can
Tho Army Air Field though the wire in an area where there was a
ditch.The attack began at approximately 2:00 a.m. and the enemy were
successful in destroying a number of aircraft on the flight line.When
challenged - Reiman has claimed that he witnessed the attack from the
roof of his BEQ
> What happened in 1967 had nothing to do
> with the 1969 attack. Duh.
Very good. You're catching on. That's what we've been trying to
bring to your attention. The ambulances used in the 1967 attack had
nothing to do with infiltrating through the wire in the 1969 attack.
Now do you get it?
How, in 1969, were you able to "witness" the events of 1967?
>
> Next Duh: Please post (with Google URL archive) *Everything* I
> said about me watching this attack unfold. Stop taking one
> element of what I say out of context, then dishonestly try to
> discredit it.
OK. You can read the whole nine yards -- 203 lines -- of boring
bull-shit. Trust me, the pertinent part is quoted accurately below.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.congress/msg/5f1ba8041ce5
01a4
When I was in Vietnam, stationed in Can Tho, I witnessed two
ambulances drive through our main gate, calmly drive to our
airport, drive on the tarmac and while driving down the tarmac
Viet Cong contained in the ambulances shot each plane on the
tarmac with a M-79 grenade launcher. Then when they were
through, they simply drove out the back gate and down the road.
This was a "drive-by" on an airport!
These six or seven Viet Cong, equipped with simple weapons (that
look like big shotguns) destroyed an entire American Army air
base in about five minutes!
Explain how in 1969, you were able to witness an attack which
occurred two years previously. I'm mildly curious.
>
> Next Duh: Where were you at the time?
I was predisposed elsewhere in Southeast Asia -- during both
attacks.
> Officer's club at Ft.
> Benning? Supply Room? You were not even in Vietnam during this
> attack and you sure as hell were not next to me in Can Tho when I
> was watching it!
> All you are doing is reporting from after
> action reports that (1) are known to be only 25% accurate in
> general terms (just ask Hanoi John Kerry about those "after
> action reports") and 100% innaccuarate when it comes to the
> details of the attack.
Uh huh, sure Doug. Whatever....
DGVREIMAN
> In article <7POdnRuiPbWonSre...@comcast.com>,
> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>
>> Doug Says: The author of
>> the above certainly did not say he *fought* in each of those
>> campaings.
>
>
> No, you said you were "involved." Just what did your
> involvement
> consist of?
>
"fought in" then are you now admitting you lied? Were wrong?
Stupid? Cannot read? I also asked you for the Google URL so I
can read what you claim I said in proper context. Please provide
a Google URL so I can find the post or article you are
referencing. I told you a dozen times that the
dgg...@worldnet.att account was not owned by me, and at least 40
different people posted under that account along with not less
than four cooperative typists. So you need to provide at least
some evidence that the post (1) came from that account and (2)
the post was written by me or dictated by me. Moreover, if I
have already answered that quip, please provide all subsequent
responses posted by me in respect to clarifications and
explanations. To not do so would be disingenuous at best, and
more likely would simply represent a smear campaign by using
out-of-context statements and "selective" interpretations and
distortions.
Also, please stop altering, changing and adding words to quips
and statements you claim came from me. Your dishonesty in that
regard is glaring.
BTW, here is the American Heritage's Dictionary's definition of
the term "Involved."
in暇olved (雉-v幢vd") adj. 1. Complicated; intricate: the
involved procedure of getting a license. See Synonyms at complex.
2. Curled inward; coiled or involute. 3. Confused; tangled. 4.
Connected by participation or association:
>
>> So what is your point Dai DumDum? That you are an
>> idiot? If that is your point you have made it very well.
>> >
>> > ***** I just have to know, did you carry your personal
>> > TV
>> > set on
>> > operation? .....and the generator?
>>
>> Doug Says: Since your question does not even apply to the
>> above
>> passage or quip, only you know what the hell you are talking
>> about.
>
> You do have a problem with reading comprehension. Explain
> what you
> meant when you said:
>
>> > (1) Hobo Woods (2) Au Shaw Valley (3) Tet 1968 (4) Battle
>> > for
>> > Hue (5) May Iron Triangle Offensive 1969...etc
>> > Those were some of the battles I *personally* was involved,
>> > and I *personally* watched and heard the "newsboys"
>> > broadcast
>> > our tactics . "
Doug Says: See above for the definition of "Involved." (There
is no charge for this English lesson). >
> If, as you say, you were "involved", how did you find the
> oportunity to locate a TV in order to watch and hear the
> newsboys
> broadcast anything. I dare say there was no TV watching going
> on at any
> of those engagements.
Doug Says: Moron, read the passage, it does not say "Involved
"while" watching TV" - you cannot be that stupid, can you? The
clear point of the author's quip above was that news boys were
broadcasting our battle tactics to the enemy while certain
battles were going on. Everyone that was in Vietnam at the time
of those encounters were "involved" in those campaigns, as they
contributed one way or another to them in general. Everyone
listened to radios in Vietnam Dai Dorko, and TV's were available,
especially in Officer's clubs and Headquarters. They even had a
TV at the Alamo that I used to watch from time to time. You do
know where the Alamo was located don't you?
> "Fought."
>
> "Involved."
>
> Is that how you think you can weasel out of this. Face it,
> you've
> been caught in another of your bogus "combat" lies.
>
> You lose.
>
> It was fun playing.......
Doug Says: Moron, "involved" does not mean "fought" - look it
up. The only person that has been caught in anything is you and
of course you have been caught in yet more distortions, lies and
fabrications. Distorting the true meaning of words, then
claiming *your goofy distortion* proves something you want to
prove for your defamation purposes is a sign of a very stupid
person, or a mental patient, one or the other.
Since there is no claim of combat in the above passage, and I am
not even sure if I wrote it or not, or even if what you are
posting is not a complete forgery, or even with a few words
"moved around" or "substituted" like you and other gang members
like to do, your claims that somehow "watching TV" and "involved"
means "combat" borders on the Psycho - no wonder some of your
friends nicknamed you Psycho.
>
>
> You are a fraud.
Doug Says: BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Now that is Pot Kettle Black! A
"fraud" is someone that substitutes different words and different
meanings for a word, then claims his false substitutions prove
anything other than he is a complete and obvious idiot!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
This post from you is a classic form of defamation with the use
of lies, distortions, false accusations, and ridiculous word
"substitutions and forgeries." You cannot "rewrite" a paragraph
and then howl that it means something that it clearly did not and
then use your own distortion for the purpose of defamation moron,
well you can and you did, but that still doesn't mean you can
expect to get away with it. Do you realize how petty, stupid and
generally dishonest and unethical you appear when you do this?
(I cannot believe this character "Dai Dopey" was once a
commissioned junior officer in the US Army considering his
dishonorable smear tactics and personal attacks - no wonder he
is hiding his DD214)..
>
>
>> I will say this, I never had a personal TV set or a
>> personal Generator in Vietnam. I know those things were
>> common
>> to your officer's clubs, along with air conditioning, but I
>> never
>> was afforded that luxury. I was a senior NCO in Vietnam, I
>> worked for a living remember?
(Note no comment on this from Dai Dappy.) Once again we see Dai
Uy shooting himself in foot with his lies, distortions and
fabrications. Pathetic.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>> >
>> >
Dai Uy
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> in·volved (¹n-v¼lvd") adj. 1. Complicated; intricate: the
I did not see a TV set the entire time I was in Viet Nam.
I did not see a TV set the entire time I was in Viet Nam.
>
> (Note no comment on this from Dai Dappy.)
(Note: See both comments above.)
Mac
***************
> How, in 1969, were you able to "witness" the events of 1967?
Doug "the OCS "Butter-Bar" Grant obviously made use of Professor
Peabody's "Wayback Machine"...
Dai Uy
"Fought" or "PERSONALLY involved"?
In article <7P-dnTBL74m...@comcast.com>,
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> involved (n-v¼lvd") adj. 1. Complicated; intricate: the
Doug Says: "Everyone that was in Vietnam at the time of those
encounters were "involved" in those campaigns, as they contributed one
way or another to them in general."
What a crock!
Tell that to the guys who were in the mud and the blood!
Doug, you claimed you were "PERSONALLY" involved -- not merely
involved. Would you care to tell us what your personal involvement
consisted of?
What balderdash! You're trying to steal the honor and valor of
those who were "personally" involved. How low can you go?
I did not see a TV set the entire time I was in Viet Nam.
>
I did not see a TV set the entire time I was in Viet Nam.
>
> (Note no comment on this from Dai Dappy.)
(Note: See both of my comments on watching TV above.)
Nigel Brooks
Using Mr. Reiman's logic that "everyone" who was in Vietnam during a
particular event "participated" in the event, one can quite easily make the
leap that "everyone" in Vietnam may also claim to have participated in the
actions which gave rise to the award of the MOH to the folks who received
them.
Again using his logic, it is reasonable to assume that Doogie may also
accept some of the blame for My Lai, as it occurred during the period he was
in country too.
What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You've gotta admit one thing though, when caught in a lie, old Doogie just
tries to turn it around, revise and extend his remarks, and generally make
an ass of himself.
--
Nigel Brooks
DGVREIMAN
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:420sfnF...@individual.net...
Doug Says: Duh, moron#1, being involved in a major campaign that
is being conducted in Vietnam is not the same as performing a
specific action that would lead to the award of the Medal of
Honor. Do you guys all take the same stupid pill in the morning,
or, are you all located on the same mental ward? I say that
because I believe only morons and mental patients could "easily
make the leap" that being involved in major campaigns while
serving in Vietnam is the same as being involved in a specific
action that leads to the award of a Medal of Honor. DUH!
>
> Again using his logic, it is reasonable to assume that Doogie
> may also accept some of the blame for My Lai, as it occurred
> during the period he was in country too.
>
> What a crock!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You've gotta admit one thing though, when caught in a lie, old
> Doogie just tries to turn it around, revise and extend his
> remarks, and generally make an ass of himself.
Doug Says: Caught in what lie? You've gotta admit, when BS
Brooks is caught in one of his many lies, distortions, "leaps"
false accusations, nonsensical conclusions, "selective"
investigations, libel and fraud, and when his claim is proved as
such, he tries to find ways to stop twisting in wind as an
exposed smear merchant. This "leap" from someone saying he was "
involved in major campaigns while in Vietnam" actually really
secretly meaning to BS Brooks that the author was trying to say
he was "involved in the My Lai massacre" is about as goofy and
distorted as it sounds. First BS Brooks admits that I have
various Vietnam campaign stars, then he claims when I might have
said I was involved in those campaigns that statement also means
I am really saying I was involved in the My Lai massacre, is
reflective of the mental processes, or lack thereof, of a dyed
in the wool smear merchant and obvious loony tune. Second, I am
still waiting for the Google URL for the quip in question so I
can determine if I even wrote that passage or not, and read the
entire message in context. It appears to me the author was
simply saying that our liberal press was broadcasting our battle
plans for various campaigns to the enemy. How this suddenly
became "involved in all MOH awards" and "involved in the My Lai
massacre" is something only a psychologist could determine after
a lengthy examination of the drooling morons that would express
such a connection or association. BS Brooks has been caught
again in mid whine and disassociation, but what else is new.
You gotta wonder what makes these smear merchants tick? Are they
really as stupid and as inferior as they sound? Why do they use
personal attacks in each post? Are they so stupid they cannot
formulate coherent replies to simple posts or passages? Or, do
they feel inferior to real Veterans? Who knows, I am not a
Doctor, but I sure as hell can smell a smear merchant twisting in
the wind, and ol BS Brooks is really smelling up the place with
this one.
Doug Grant (Tm)
> --
> Nigel Brooks
>
Nigel Brooks
news:DOqdnSb_rcsrTybe...@comcast.com...
> You gotta wonder what makes these smear merchants tick? Are they really
> as stupid and as inferior as they sound? Why do they use personal attacks
> in each post? Are they so stupid they cannot formulate coherent replies
> to simple posts or passages? Or, do they feel inferior to real Veterans?
> Who knows, I am not a Doctor, but I sure as hell can smell a smear
> merchant twisting in the wind, and ol BS Brooks is really smelling up the
> place with this one.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
>
Who gives a crap what you wonder? Everyone who served in Vietnam has at
least one campaign star.
FACT
You are the author of the postings which have been referred to since March
of last year, and no attempt to distance yourself from them by claiming that
they are the product of "employees", "hackers", or "outer space aliens" will
work. You wrote them!!!!!!!
FACT
A thorough and impartial investigation of your claims and usenet musings
regarding the nature of your service and experiences in Vietnam has proven
that you grossly exxagerated the nature of that service. For some reason
known only to yourself, you have chosen to embellish your service in Vietnam
as a person whose primary MOS was that of a Personnel Sergeant or
administrator.
FACT
You are a laughing stock and have been thoroughly exposed and discredited.
--
Nigel Brooks
DGVREIMAN
Doug Says: Those guys were not "invovled" by assocation, they
"fought" in those battles. See the different Dai Duckwad,
"fought" means "fought." "Associated" means "involved." Stop
trying to substitute the word "Invovled" with "fought." Your
distortions and lies are glaring again. The author of the quip
you posted out of context without a URL that you are attributing
to me was clearly talking about our liberal news media
broadcasting our battle plans in respect to those campaigns. Now
you know I have Tet offensive campaign stars. And a Tet
counteroffensive Campaign star as well, obviously, I was
*involved* in those campaigns in more ways than just going out on
patrols, serving in reactionary forces, and commanding bunker
lines during attacks.
>
> Doug, you claimed you were "PERSONALLY" involved -- not
> merely
> involved. Would you care to tell us what your personal
> involvement
> consisted of?
Doug Says: What! Didn't you claim you had "thoroughly reviewed"
my records from the "Tick Tock" FOIA request? You mean the Army
did not give you all of my records like I said they would not?
And now, after all of your "Tick Tock" threats, you still want me
to fill you in on the details of my Vietnam service? Yet you
want to still hide from displaying your own DD 214 when mine has
already been displayed on a web site that is using that
information to sell products? Also, I am not sure I wrote that
quip. Please post the URL so we can see for sure what the author
meant, and that you are not forging a quip or taking it out of
context.
>
> What balderdash! You're trying to steal the honor and
> valor of
> those who were "personally" involved. How low can you go?
Doug Says: Balderdash is right MAC. Let's see the
URL................Although I did some, I certainly was involved
in other ways as well. Being associated with some of those
campaigns, and fighting in others, certainly does not steal the
valor nor honor from anyone. Was S-2 involved, S-3 Involved,
G-2? G-3? Personnel? Of course. They had to be "involved" as
they needed to know the battle plans so as to move large numbers
of personnel and equipment around, and to coordinate tactics and
intelligence. So was their involvement in the "battle plans" of
the stated campaigns which I believe the quip was all about (the
author was complaining the liberal media was broadcasting battle
PLANS) and being "involved" (associated with) those battle plans
for the stated campaigns was the point of the quip. So did all
G-2, G-3, S-2, S-3, Personnel NCO's and officers that were
involved in those stated campaigns steal the "honor and valor"
from those men that actually fought in those campaigns? Of
course not. I fought in some of them, and I sure as hell do not
feel as if my honor and valor was stolen. Since you fought in
none of them, how was your "honor and valor" stolen Dai
Dumdedumde?
Dai Uy
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> Doug Says: Balderdash is right MAC. Let's see the
> URL................
Sure thing Doug. It's not difficult. Why are you totally
incapable of looking up your own postings. Do you honestly think anyone
else could come up with these self aggrandizing epistles?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.congress/msg/249b9d9aa192
427b
- - - - - [excerpt] - - - - -
> What kind of weird fantasy world do you live in?
> Can you please name one time that the military shared their
> "secret battle
> plans" in Viet Nam so that the Media could broadcast it
> nationwide, and our
> troops fell into an ambush? You must be a real youngster.
Doug Says:
No, (1) I do not live in a fantasy world, apparently you do. If
you want a few names of battles in which the Media was on site
and broadcasting our every move, it would harder to list the ones
in which the media was NOT present in Vietnam than listing the
ones in which our battle plans were being broadcast openly. (1)
Hobo Woods (2) Au Shaw Valley (3) Tet 1968 (4) Battle for Hue (5)
May Iron Triangle Offensive 1969...etc Those were some of the
battles I *personally* was involved, and I *personally* watched
and heard the "newsboys" broadcast our tactics. So I don't know
where you have been living (Mars Perhaps) but obviously you were
never in Vietnam. "
- - - - - [end excerpt] - - - - -
You wrote it. Didn't you
> Although I did some,
Some what? Fighting?
> I certainly was involved
> in other ways as well. Being associated with some of those
> campaigns, and fighting in others,
Specifically which battles did you fight in, and what did that
"so-called fighting" consist of?
> certainly does not steal the
> valor nor honor from anyone. Was S-2 involved, S-3 Involved,
> G-2? G-3? Personnel? Of course. They had to be "involved" as
> they needed to know the battle plans so as to move large numbers
> of personnel and equipment around, and to coordinate tactics and
> intelligence. So was their involvement in the "battle plans" of
> the stated campaigns which I believe the quip was all about (the
> author was complaining the liberal media was broadcasting battle
> PLANS) and being "involved" (associated with) those battle plans
> for the stated campaigns was the point of the quip. So did all
> G-2, G-3, S-2, S-3, Personnel NCO's and officers that were
> involved in those stated campaigns steal the "honor and valor"
> from those men that actually fought in those campaigns? Of
> course not.
Only if they claimed to have actually fought in some of them.
> I fought in some of them, and I sure as hell do not
> feel as if my honor and valor was stolen. Since you fought in
> none of them, how was your "honor and valor" stolen Dai
> Dumdedumde?
>
If someone who had NOT fought in the Hobo Woods, the Au Shau
Valley, or the Battle for Hue claimed that they were "PERSONALLY
involved" in those battles, would he be stealing the honor and valor of
those who did?
What was YOUR personal involvement in those battles?
-Dai Uy sends
Dai Uy
"Nigel Brooks" <nbr...@msn.com> wrote:
> Using Mr. Reiman's logic that "everyone" who was in Vietnam during a
> particular event "participated" in the event, one can quite easily make the
> leap that "everyone" in Vietnam may also claim to have participated in the
> actions which gave rise to the award of the MOH to the folks who received
> them.
D Says: Of course, you moron. Doesn't that follow logically from
"everyone" who was in Vietnam during a particular event "participated"
in the event." What's the matter with you, dumb ass, can't you think
logically. One and one are two! Duh!!! Didn't take your meds this
morning? You stupid, brain dead, idiot, you've got 72 hours to
apologize!
DGVREIMAN
> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
> news:DOqdnSb_rcsrTybe...@comcast.com...
>
>> You gotta wonder what makes these smear merchants tick? Are
>> they really as stupid and as inferior as they sound? Why do
>> they use personal attacks in each post? Are they so stupid
>> they cannot formulate coherent replies to simple posts or
>> passages? Or, do they feel inferior to real Veterans? Who
>> knows, I am not a Doctor, but I sure as hell can smell a smear
>> merchant twisting in the wind, and ol BS Brooks is really
>> smelling up the place with this one.
>>
>> Doug Grant (Tm)
>>
>
>
> Who gives a crap what you wonder? Everyone who served in
> Vietnam has at least one campaign star.
Doug Says: Your point ol dumbone?
>
> FACT
>
> You are the author of the postings which have been referred to
> since March of last year, and no attempt to distance yourself
> from them by claiming that they are the product of "employees",
> "hackers", or "outer space aliens" will work. You wrote
> them!!!!!!!
Doug Says: BS Brooks, please stop the lying and smearing. I
provided you with 71 previous archive Google references that the
Dgg...@worldnet.att.net account was being used by about 40
different people and four different typists. I proved that you
lied when you tried to claim that I did not mention that account
had multiple users before you started your smear campaign. So
stop lying about it not unless you want me to post where you lied
about me not telling anyone about that account. Also, the Doug
Grant (Tm) has been used by a few other authors, but not as many
as the dgg...@worldnet.att.net - you were told that fact as well
yet you keep ignoring it so you will not look like so big of a
serial liar and smear merchant. But the main reason I am asking
for a URL reference to everything you and your chums and aliases
claim I said is because (1) you distort the meaning and context
of what I write (2) you lie about what I write (3) you inject
false meanings and substitute words within what I have wrote in
the past. In essence, you are a liar and you fabricate
falsehoods and you fraudulently distort the meaning of what I
write on a scale that is even hard for me to understand - not
unless you idiots *like* to be exposed as smear merchants for
profit?
So if you claim I said something, simply post the Google URL so
we can all read what I *really* said, and not what you
fraudulently are claiming I said. You claiming something is a
FACT is about as convincing as a Vietnamese Whore claiming she
does not fuck monkeys. Simply back up your claims with FACTS -
real ones and not BS Brooks BS if you want to appear that you at
least have some semblance of honesty.
>
> FACT
>
> A thorough and impartial investigation of your claims and
> usenet musings regarding the nature of your service and
> experiences in Vietnam has proven that you grossly exxagerated
> the nature of that service. For some reason known only to
> yourself, you have chosen to embellish your service in Vietnam
> as a person whose primary MOS was that of a Personnel Sergeant
> or administrator.
Doug Says: Duh, BS Brooks is lying again. You need to be
specific with your lies BS Brooks, your goofy " facts" are
nonsense, and you idiotic and false claim that I was a Personnel
Sergeant throughout my entire career in the US Army, and all the
time I was in Vietnam has been proved a bald face BS Brooks lie
and distortion. You have even been caught lying about my unit -
claiming that the Wolfhounds had personnel sergeants assigned to
it is a lie and you know it BS Brooks. It has been you and your
gang that has been caught in mid smear and lie after lie. So
stop trying to repeat the very lies that have already been proved
obvious lies and fraud. FACT: BS Brooks is not an
"investigator" - he is a smear merchant that uses fraud and
defamation to create controversy so he can direct people to web
sites to sell them shit. Now that is the truth of the matter.
Your lies and distortions about me are certainly far from
"impartial" and you know you cannot admit your lies as it would
prove to the world you are nothing but a smear merchant with a
big time inferiority complex.
>
> FACT
>
> You are a laughing stock and have been thoroughly exposed and
> discredited.
>
Doug Says: BWAHAHAHAHAHA. The only "Laughing Stock" I see
around here is the BS Brooks smear merchant gang twisting in the
wind due to all of their lies being exposed.
Like I said, You've gotta admit, when BS
You gotta wonder what makes these smear merchants tick? Are they
really as stupid and as inferior as they sound? Why do they use
personal attacks in each post? Are they so stupid they cannot
formulate coherent replies to simple posts or passages? Or, do
they feel inferior to real Veterans? Who knows, I am not a
Doctor, but I sure as hell can smell a smear merchant twisting in
the wind, and ol BS Brooks is really smelling up the place with
this one.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
> --
> Nigel Brooks
9999
You gotta wonder what makes these smear merchants tick? Are they
really as stupid and as inferior as they sound? Why do they use
personal attacks in each post? Are they so stupid they cannot
formulate coherent replies to simple posts or passages? Or, do
they feel inferior to real Veterans? Who knows, I am not a
Doctor, but I sure as hell can smell a smear merchant twisting in
the wind, and ol BS Brooks is really smelling up the place with
this one.
Doug Grant (Tm)
> --
> Nigel Brooks
>
Nigel Brooks
Of course I'm not lying your records prove that it is you who have lied.
>> FACT
>>
>> You are a laughing stock and have been thoroughly exposed and
>> discredited.
>>
> Doug Says: BWAHAHAHAHAHA. The only "Laughing Stock" I see around here is
> the BS Brooks smear merchant gang twisting in the wind due to all of their
> lies being exposed.
A thorough review of your Vietnam usenet fantasies is available for all to
view on the internet along with the actual official US Government records of
exactly what you did.
I'll just leave it to the reader to determine whether or not you lied
Nigel Brooks
DGVREIMAN
> In article <rfWdnfNw6OQ...@comcast.com>,
> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>
>> Doug Says: Balderdash is right MAC. Let's see the
>> URL................
>
> Sure thing Doug. It's not difficult. Why are you totally
> incapable of looking up your own postings. Do you honestly
> think anyone
> else could come up with these self aggrandizing epistles?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.congress/msg/249b9d9aa192
> 427b
>
take me to any post of mine. Caught lying again I see. Do you
really think you can post forged URL's and no one will check
them? Whew!
> - - - - - [excerpt] - - - - -
>
>> What kind of weird fantasy world do you live in?
>> Can you please name one time that the military shared their
>> "secret battle
>> plans" in Viet Nam so that the Media could broadcast it
>> nationwide, and our
>> troops fell into an ambush? You must be a real youngster.
>
> Doug Says:
> No, (1) I do not live in a fantasy world, apparently you do. If
> you want a few names of battles in which the Media was on site
> and broadcasting our every move, it would harder to list the
> ones
> in which the media was NOT present in Vietnam than listing the
> ones in which our battle plans were being broadcast openly. (1)
> Hobo Woods (2) Au Shaw Valley (3) Tet 1968 (4) Battle for Hue
> (5)
> May Iron Triangle Offensive 1969...etc Those were some of the
> battles I *personally* was involved, and I *personally* watched
> and heard the "newsboys" broadcast our tactics. So I don't know
> where you have been living (Mars Perhaps) but obviously you
> were
> never in Vietnam. "
>
> - - - - - [end excerpt] - - - - -
>
> You wrote it. Didn't you
Doug Says: Post the URL so I can confirm that fact and read it
in context. If you do not have the URL then just say so.
>
>
>> Although I did some,
>
> Some what? Fighting?
Doug Says: Of course. I was in combat in Vietnam from time to
time. You already know that. I have two campaign stars from the
Tet offensive and the Tet counter offensive, and you already have
admitted that. So please do not continue to lie about it - you
are just looking dumber than ususal. BTW, what was your MOS and
Rank prior to OCS? And please post your DD214 like you
promised - hypocrite.
>
>> I certainly was involved
>> in other ways as well. Being associated with some of those
>> campaigns, and fighting in others,
>
> Specifically which battles did you fight in, and what did
> that
> "so-called fighting" consist of?
Doug Says: You first. Post your DD214 and answer the above
questions.
>
>> certainly does not steal the
>> valor nor honor from anyone. Was S-2 involved, S-3 Involved,
>> G-2? G-3? Personnel? Of course. They had to be "involved" as
>> they needed to know the battle plans so as to move large
>> numbers
>> of personnel and equipment around, and to coordinate tactics
>> and
>> intelligence. So was their involvement in the "battle plans"
>> of
>> the stated campaigns which I believe the quip was all about
>> (the
>> author was complaining the liberal media was broadcasting
>> battle
>> PLANS) and being "involved" (associated with) those battle
>> plans
>> for the stated campaigns was the point of the quip. So did
>> all
>> G-2, G-3, S-2, S-3, Personnel NCO's and officers that were
>> involved in those stated campaigns steal the "honor and valor"
>> from those men that actually fought in those campaigns? Of
>> course not.
>
> Only if they claimed to have actually fought in some of
> them.
Doug Says: Well now, at least you admit you were wrong about
someone being involved in those campaigns and not fighting in all
of them stealing the "valor and honor" of those that actually did
fight in them. I guess you realize how goofy your claim sounded
so you backpedaled. Hope for you yet Dai Duneony.
>
>> I fought in some of them, and I sure as hell do not
>> feel as if my honor and valor was stolen. Since you fought in
>> none of them, how was your "honor and valor" stolen Dai
>> Dumdedumde?
>>
>
> If someone who had NOT fought in the Hobo Woods, the Au
> Shau
> Valley, or the Battle for Hue claimed that they were
> "PERSONALLY
> involved" in those battles, would he be stealing the honor and
> valor of
> those who did?
>
> What was YOUR personal involvement in those battles?
Doug Says: We have just went through all that Dai Deceiver.
All those that were involved in those campaigns but did not fight
in them did not steal any valor or honor from those that actually
did the fighting. See above, you even agreed with me in my G-2
example, and now you disagree? Make up your pea brain Dai Dummy.
You are making me dizzy.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
> -Dai Uy sends
DGVREIMAN
Doug Says:
Involved is a broad term. It means assocated in any way.
If they have a campaign star from that period, or if they were
involved in officer assignments, planning, logistics for the
campaign, intelligence even for their particular area as it would
connect to that major campaign, they were involved. There were
few major campaigns that all in Vietnam were not involved in.
The exceptions of course would be PX commandos and border guards.
Oh yeah, include fake federal agents in that group as well. er,
"Tick Tock" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Doug Grant (Tm)
DGVREIMAN
Doug Says: Of course you are lying BS Brooks, my records prove
that fact completely.
>
>>> FACT
>>>
>>> You are a laughing stock and have been thoroughly exposed and
>>> discredited.
>>>
>> Doug Says: BWAHAHAHAHAHA. The only "Laughing Stock" I see
>> around here is the BS Brooks smear merchant gang twisting in
>> the wind due to all of their lies being exposed.
>
> A thorough review of your Vietnam usenet fantasies is available
> for all to view on the internet along with the actual official
> US Government records of exactly what you did.
>
> I'll just leave it to the reader to determine whether or not
> you lied
Doug Says: Which readers, members of your smear for profit gang?
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Also, I have not seen any such web site?
Why hide it if you are claiming what you lied about on it is
true? What are you afraid of BS Brooks, the fact I can prove all
of your lies the lies and distortions they are? Your main lie is
that every patrol, combat duty, guard duty, convoy duty, etc., is
reflected on the records you received from your FOIA. We both
know that is a lie, so your meager FOIA records prove
diddlysquat, and your claim that "duh none of his guard duty" is
reflected on his records is a deception that is a bald face lie -
since we both know that such duties are NEVER reflected on the
records you received. So cut the bull BS Brooks, your smear
merchant tactics are obvious. All of the honest readers and real
vets that have been reading your smears know you are a fake
federal agent and a serial liar, not to mention someone that
creates smears to use on web sites to make money. Your unethical
business practices have been exposed BS Brooks - now don't cry,
it had to happen some time considering your constant personal
attacks on everyone that you feel inferior to.
Also, did you contest the US Army's ruling not to provide you and
your cyberstalking gang my personal information or not like you
claimed? If you are not lying post your letter to them. Also,
you need to state what your duties, rank and MOS was while you
were in the US Army for two whole years as a draftee. Why hide
that information unless you are ashamed of it?
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
>
> Nigel Brooks
>
Dai Uy
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> "Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Dai-Uy-514B9D....@news-lb-02.socal.rr.com...
> >
> > Sure thing Doug. It's not difficult. Why are you totally
> > incapable of looking up your own postings. Do you honestly
> > think anyone
> > else could come up with these self aggrandizing epistles?
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.congress/msg/249b9d9aa192
> > 427b
> >
> Doug Says: Uh, Dai Dillysquater, the google URL above does not
> take me to any post of mine. Caught lying again I see. Do you
> really think you can post forged URL's and no one will check
> them? Whew!
Some bulbs don't burn as bright as others.
Funny, It works for me and everyone else. Try copying the "entire"
URL into your web browser's address window and hit return/enter. Let us
know if you have further difficulties. Maybe some hacker has hacked
your computer to prevent you from accessing certain web pages. Right?
Jones?
I have the URL, and I've given it to you... Here it is again:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.congress/msg/249b9d9aa192
427b
> >
> >> Although I did some,
> >
> > Some what? Fighting?
>
> Doug Says: Of course. I was in combat in Vietnam from time to
> time. You already know that.
No one knows that.
> I have two campaign stars from the
> Tet offensive and the Tet counter offensive, and you already have
> admitted that.
Doug. Service stars are worn to denote an additional award or
service in a named campaign. They do not denote combat. Don't take my
word for it, see AR 670-1 and AR 600-8-22. Let us know what they say.
> So please do not continue to lie about it - you
> are just looking dumber than ususal. BTW, what was your MOS and
> Rank prior to OCS?
Last time. Pay attention. I was a Special Forces Weapons Sergeant
- MOS 112.63.
What is your problem are you losing your memory?
See URL:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.war.vietnam/msg/d690dd3a33981f32
On June 12, last year, I wrote, in reply to your Di Dummy insults:
> (Of course I don't know what Di Dummy did prior to his OCS
> graduation, and he is not talking nor willing to provide any
> documents in that respect either.)
The reason you don't know is because you've never asked, but for
the record, I was a Special Forces Weapons Sergeant - MOS 112.63.
Now you know.
What was your MOS prior to OCS?
So, what do you say Reiman, are you going to post evidence of your
service equivalent to what you've demanded of others?
I answered your questions. You refused to answer mine. It
required a FOIA request to get that answer. In that same post I said:
I've offered to post my DD214 if you would. You are the **ONLY**
vet here who refuses to reveal even his unit assignments in Viet Nam.
Your continual refusal convinces me that you never served in Viet Nam.
I firmly believe that you are a complete fraud. As a trained analyst, I
am so confident in my analysis that I am willing to wager $50.00 that
your DD214 will not indicate service in Viet Nam.
I'm waiting for you to post your DD214. In the interim, after you
stated, "OK, you have a deal," I posted what my DD214 item 11 says --
item 11.a, 11.b and 11.c. You haven't posted a thing -- no DD214, and
no contents of item 11 of that DD214.
> And please post your DD214 like you
> promised - hypocrite.
After you. You're weaseling out of posting anything -- I trusted
you enough to reveal the contents of my DD214, item 11. Do you think
I'm going to post anything further unless you do?
> >
> >> I certainly was involved
> >> in other ways as well. Being associated with some of those
> >> campaigns, and fighting in others,
> >
> > Specifically which battles did you fight in, and what did
> > that
> > "so-called fighting" consist of?
>
> Doug Says: You first. Post your DD214 and answer the above
> questions.
No Doug. I've patiently explained why I won't until you do.
You've already reneged on an agreement.
Answer the question: Specifically which battles did you fight in,
and what did that "so-called fighting" consist of?
> >
.....unless they claimed to have fought in some of them.
> >
> >> I fought in some of them, and I sure as hell do not
> >> feel as if my honor and valor was stolen. Since you fought in
> >> none of them, how was your "honor and valor" stolen Dai
> >> Dumdedumde?
> >>
> >
> > If someone who had NOT fought in the Hobo Woods, the Au
> > Shau
> > Valley, or the Battle for Hue claimed that they were
> > "PERSONALLY
> > involved" in those battles, would he be stealing the honor and
> > valor of
> > those who did?
> >
> > What was YOUR personal involvement in those battles?
>
> Doug Says: We have just went through all that Dai Deceiver.
No Doug. You've not told us what your *PERSONAL* involvement in
the Hobo Woods, the Au Shau Valley, or the Battle for Hue.
> All those that were involved in those campaigns but did not fight
> in them did not steal any valor or honor from those that actually
> did the fighting. See above, you even agreed with me in my G-2
> example, and now you disagree?
If they claimed to have fought in some of them, as you have, and in
fact did not, they are stealing the honor and valor of those that did.
> Make up your pea brain Dai Dummy.
> You are making me dizzy.
You get all the credit for that!
SteveL
wrote:
>
>"Dai Uy" <Dai...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:Dai-Uy-514B9D....@news-lb-02.socal.rr.com...
>> In article <rfWdnfNw6OQ...@comcast.com>,
>> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>>
>>> Doug Says: Balderdash is right MAC. Let's see the
>>> URL................
>>
>> Sure thing Doug. It's not difficult. Why are you totally
>> incapable of looking up your own postings. Do you honestly
>> think anyone
>> else could come up with these self aggrandizing epistles?
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.congress/msg/249b9d9aa192
>> 427b
There is a line break in the above URL. Double click it and you'll get
"page not found" in the browser, then type 427b at the end of the
line, press again and you get a post of yours from Mar 28 2002.
Or better yet. I've tiny'd it.
Click here.
http://tinyurl.com/c9w68
Always pleased to help the web-challenged.
>>
>Doug Says: Uh, Dai Dillysquater, the google URL above does not
>take me to any post of mine. Caught lying again I see. Do you
>really think you can post forged URL's and no one will check
>them? Whew!
I checked.
It's not a forged URL.
Nigel Brooks
> Also, did you contest the US Army's ruling not to provide you and your
> cyberstalking gang my personal information or not like you claimed? If
> you are not lying post your letter to them. Also, you need to state what
> your duties, rank and MOS was while you were in the US Army for two whole
> years as a draftee. Why hide that information unless you are ashamed of
> it?
>
Give it up clown.
You have been exposed as a liar.
--
Nigel Brooks>
Dai Uy
"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
> Doug Says: Of course you are lying BS Brooks, my records prove
> that fact completely.
Post 'em Sarge! That'll show him...
Mac
wrote:
>"DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote in message
>news:gpmdnViBNPx...@comcast.com...
>
>
>> Also, did you contest the US Army's ruling not to provide you and your
>> cyberstalking gang my personal information or not like you claimed? If
>> you are not lying post your letter to them. Also, you need to state what
>> your duties, rank and MOS was while you were in the US Army for two whole
>> years as a draftee. Why hide that information unless you are ashamed of
>> it?
******************************
>Give it up clown.
>You have been exposed as a liar.
*********************
Repeatedly....
A FATUOUS liar...
---Mac
Mac
>In article <rfWdnfNw6OQ...@comcast.com>,
> "DGVREIMAN" <DGVR...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:
>
>> Doug Says: Balderdash is right MAC. Let's see the
>> URL................
*************************
Where you are concerned, balderdash, blather AND codswallop!
Having a hard time keeping track of all your many and varied
stories???
Try doing a GOOGLE search.
Do your own work....
HOWEVER, Dai-Uy is giving you the courtesy you do not deserve.
Kindly click on the URL which he provided for your conveninece.
---Mac
******************