"DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:VsGdnTgk18RjG6rVnZ2dnUVZ_tPinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Doug Says: No one asked you to pay a fee you cheapo. And I will
provide
> him with your "evidence" above and my rebuttal to it. Moreover, I am
> confident your self-serving confidence and knowledge is not based upon
> fact nor reason nor evidence, it is based upon ridiculous irrelevant
> bull****, but that will be something for the experts to decide not me
nor
> you.
>
> As a case in point, you are posting things that Chip said that neither
my
> typist nor I heard him say nor read. Your posts above prove that I
never
> had anything to do with his comments, no reply to his comments came from
> me, not even once. So how can something I (nor my typist) could not
> possibly know have anything to do with what we thought he was trying to
> say in his post? If he had a conversation with his wife the Sunday
before
> he wrote what he wrote and in that conversation told his wife he had the
> purple heart medal, would you also claim that conversation was something
> we should have known and considered before we replied to him? The real
> and rational world does not have crystal balls like you seem to claim to
> have Mr. Brooks.
>
> Another point is you omitted all those times BEFORE the 2003 post that I
> said I did not have a purple heart medal, and all those times after,
which
> occurred long before you said a word about this post that was discarded
> into my waste basket due to its error. (Remember I submitted a
1998-1999
> statement to the court providing a brief autobiography of my military
> service - no purple heart medal was mentioned in that re****t). I also
> stated in 2004 no purple heart medal, and about a dozen times
thereafter.
> So if, like you claim, it was my intention to deceive everyone into
> believing I had a purple heart medal then why on Earth would I say I did
> not have that medal before and after the erred post about a dozen times?
>
> The post was written wrong by my typist Brooks, and when the error was
> detected it was removed and discarded as it should have been, and Google
> was told the precise reason it was being removed, because the word
"Cards"
> was missing and the post could be thereby misconstrued.
>
> You are claiming that a post that was long discarded was an intentional
> post and the replacement post that corrected the error was false. Do
you
> know how irrational that sounds to an independent expert Mr. Brooks?
>
> In fact you and Tom Rau agreed in a post in 2005 that I did not have nor
> ever claimed I had a purple heart medal. Yet in 2006 based upon a long
> removed ambiguous post maliciously dug out of my electronic waste basket
> by one of your smear gang members for the obvious and deliberate purpose
> to forge the context of that discarded post to defame and smear, you
> contradicted your own statements about this issue.
>
> You also ignored the fact that you offered to retract your claim the
post
> was about Medals and in fact was about Cards if I posted the fact that
> Chip did not have a purple heart medal nor any combat ribbons. When I
> agreed to post that proof, you then backpedaled from your offer to
> retract. You failed to mention that fact in your new evidence above
also
> Mr. Brooks.
>
> You also ignored that within weeks of when my typist posted that erred
> post someone asked me if I was referencing a purple heart medal in that
> very post, and I responded with "that claim is a complete distortion and
> false innuendo of what was written" or words to that effect. So if I
> intended to deceive everyone with a claim I possessed that medal, why
> would I deny the allegation that is what I meant the first time it was
> mentioned way back in 2003?
>
> You also lied and said when you first brought up this discarded post
that
> was maliciously retrieved from my waste basket by SteveL (Google is
> investigating this issue as I write this and they are pissed about it)
> back in 2006 I never replied.
>
> You said I never said it was about Cards and not Medals when you first
> brought it up, and because I did not respond then it could not have been
> about Cards. Yet by your own admission you just proved it WAS about
> Cards and not medals and your above stated conclusion to the contrary is
> completely false and preposterous. Why? Because the Google archive
> evidence shows that not only did I immediately respond to your 2006 post
> and say I had removed an erred posts about Purple Heart Cards, I also,
in
> the same post mentioned that someone else wrote the post that was
removed.
> So here is irrefutable confirmation that (1) someone other than me wrote
> the post and (2) the post was removed due to an error which means it
> obviously was not intentional, and (3) the post was intended to be about
> cards and not medals.
>
> If you disagree with any of my rebuttal above, and wish to provide
> evidence anything I said is wrong or incorrect or misleading, then
please
> do so before May 30, 2008, as that weekend I will resubmit your claims
and
> new evidence and my rebuttal and proof of it to the expert for his
review
> and opinion.
Well, yeah; I'm glad you asked.
Chip's reference to having a "CAR" obviously referred to a Combat Action
Ribbon.
You could submit the original post and your "rewrite" to your expert for
comparison. To Me, the meaning and intent of *both* posts is clear,
obvious and simply evident to an average reader. For convenience, I
present
both posts side-by-side.
http://tinyurl.com/4sd8ob
Over the years you have misrepresented your awards, time in service, time
in
country, and "eye witness" accounts. I am not surprised that the average
reader would doubt your veracity on any *fact* that you would claim or
present.
Pepperoni
>
>
> OH, BTW, about my wounds and injuries, I have FINALLY received a copy of
> the morning re****t that shows I was hospitalized in the 36th Evac after
> being med-evacuated from Can Tho. There is a reason the NPRC could not
> find these records after years of searching which I will not elaborate
on
> at this time.
>
> I also have contacted both Sp4 Olson and Sp5 Nelson and records, spoke
to
> some other people that were also on that patrol, (and on others) and
more
> about that patrol and what happened on it is coming, including specific
> information about Sp4 Olson and Sp5 Nelson's purple heart medals and
what
> happened to Sp4 Olson after he was med-evacuated. (When I reference
> wounds I am assuming you agree that concussions are considered "wounds"
> even if they are minor ones - and all bleeding wounds that are minor are
> rarely taken to an aid station or hospital if a band aid will do the
> trick).
>
> Hint, it is almost impossible to be walking directly in front of two men
> that were severaly wounded in an abused patrol without receiving at
least
> some minor wounds and a minor concussion from the multiple incoming
> explosions. And that was long before Can Tho.
>
> Doug Grant (Tm)
|
