"Nigel Brooks" <nbrooks@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:69qvfoF326dt6U1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:9LWdnQwnp9wdSqrVnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "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.
>
> It is obvious from the reading of the exchange between you and your
> opponent that you were attempting to infer that you had a PhD in
> Statistics. Your latest spin that it was an honorary degree is
> incredible - why didn't you tell your opponent that at the time.
>
>
>> 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)
>>
>
>
> Of course I disagree with your rebuttal Mr. Reiman.
>
> And I'm not interested in giving you permission to act on my behalf.
> You may however feel free to have your "expert" contact me directly
> and I'll be happy to fully apprize him of all of the facts which I
> took into account before coming to the conclusion that you are a
> pathological liar. I
> --
> Nigel Brooks
Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, first you say submit your new "evidence" to the
expert, now since you have read my rebuttal you are backpeddling again.
I don't blame you as you know your evidence and reasons for your
"opinion" are baseless. You know it and I know it.
Moreover, you need to post all of those so-called "facts" you claimed
you took into account to claim I am a "pathological liar" before I can
send them to the expert. He is not going to deal with you directly as
he does not want to be smeared and defamed by your gang. But if you
post all those "facts" you claim you possess, I will be glad to provide
them to several experts, along with my rebuttals of course. T
Then we allow the independent experts determine who is the real
"pathological liar" and who is telling the truth. You cannot get more
fair that this Mr. Brooks. So we all await your so-called "facts." er,
"Tic Toc" and if you do not post any then of course that means to me and
to the experts that you do not have any and you are just blustering and
howling your typical bull**** again.
Doug Grant (Tm)
>
>
|
