"Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:69gdf8F32gj1sU1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:lqudnabnz7o4bq_VnZ2dnUVZ_qjinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> LAWYERS AND CRACKPOTS - AND WHY TO FILE PRO SE
>>
>>(Ask them for proof of their claims the next time they make such
>>ludicrous claims and watch them scurry for their >rocks). Also, note
>>that all of the Nigel Brooks smear gang's accusations about me have
>>been submitted to a team of >independent and highly qualified
>>investigators, experts on military issues, and the law. I have already
>>seen some of >their written conclusions, and so far all of the experts
>>agree with me, and some believe I am being smeared and >defamed with
>>fraud, false accusations and obloquy, and two have recommended I take
>>immediate legal action. I will >publish all of their opinions about
>>the Nigel Brooks accusations when all of his and his gang's false
>>accusations, >forgeries, fraud, false military record representations,
>>and general obloquy have been investigated).
>
> Precisely what is defamatory about the observation that on February
> 16, 2003, in a thread entitled "Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel" at
> alt.security.terrorism you said in post number 17 as follows:
>
> "Doug Says: I have a Purple Heart also, and I received mine in a
> real war, I can't imagine where you got yours since you have
> never fought in a war. About the only place you could have
> received a purple heart was in Lebanon, and that was not a
> shooting war, just a bombing due to the ineptitude of a gang of
> Marine officers. In respect to deposing Saddam, I am the one
> advocating removing Saddam, you are the one advocating cowering,
> hiding, and doing nothing. It is pretty clear who the coward is
> around here. BTW, bragging about a Purple Heart not received in
> combat is about as cowardly as it gets."
>
> What is defamatory about the observation that your military records
> indicate that you did not receive a Purple Heart in any war - real or
> imagined?
>
> What is defamatory about the observation that on June 13, 2002, in a
> thread entitled "Truth Muslim Style", in that same newsgroup, you said
> : http://tinyurl.com/5mpopj
>
> "Doug Says: Whatever that means above only you would know. I have a
> PhD."
>
> and later
>
> "In addition, if you want to exchange résumé's then I will need to see
> yours first. But to give you a hint, my PhD is in Statistics,"
>
> What is defamatory about the observation that there is absolutely no
> record of anyone with your name being awarded a Doctor of Philosophy
> Degree in Statistics by any accredited institution of higher learning
> in the United States of America?
>
> What is defamatory about voicing the opinion that your are a liar Mr.
> Reiman?
>
> That's my opinion - and my opinion is further reinforced by the fact
> that when you posted your questions to the "justanswers" website
> http://tinyurl.com/69vrgv
you failed to provide the person giving the
> answer, any of the prior statements made in USENET made by either
> ChipC or yourself regarding being wounded. Those prior statements
> (which I have referred you to time and time again) were part of the
> evidence I took into account when concluding that you and Chip C were
> indeed claiming to have been awarded the United States Military
> award - The Purple Heart for wounds received as a result of enemy
> action.
>
> I am confident - that had EMJ1219 been fully apprized of all of the
> facts I took into account before making my determination as to the
> meaning of the referenced post - that he would have reached the same
> conclusion as I.
>
> I trust this clears up any misunderstanding you might have
>
>
> Nigel Brooks
Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, I have already posted several times that Ph.D
was honorary. You knew this, yet claim you searched for non-honorary
degrees, your intent was of course not to find a degree then complain
about it.
I was awarded an honorary Ph.D by the only entity that could award such
an honor in the State it was awarded. The Honorary was awarded by a
college licenced and authorized by the state to provide gaming
instruction for my systicial analysis of something known as "floating
zones" which revolutionized card counting methods. If you still
disagree I received this award, then provide your evidence to the
contrary and I will provide yours and mine to the expert.
Second, you again claim I wrote that PH quip, and all of the evidence
states I was not the author. Third, the post you repeated above was
discarded due to its error. If I intended the post to be misconstrued
why would I remove it long before you or anyone else said anything about
it? Regardless of your ridiculous "evidence" above, I will submit it
along with my following rebuttal:
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.
Doug Grant (Tm)
|
