"Troll #327" <leonard@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:mv7s14hh9em3dok204sfr0q5buhp6v4sjo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Sun, 4 May 2008 12:46:47 -0700, "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>NIGEL BROOKS CAN THO MELTON ATTACK - 2ND REBUTTAL
>>
>>(Smear Merchant Disclaimer: Please note this article (the same as all
>>of
>>my past articles and exchanges with posters) represents an editorial
>>on
>>contem****ary issues and events - my opinion. Nothing in this article
>>represents in any manner any asseveration of biographical fact, nor is
>>about, directed toward or against any particular person - other than
>>those specifically mentioned herein. This article is being posted for
>>entertainment purposes only. If any person finds this post personally
>>annoying, abusive, defaming or otherwise disturbing, please notify me
>>of
>>your specific reasons for annoyance via email at
>>legalcoach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>If we find your detailed objections reasonable (considering the
>>"reasonable person" doctrine and case law) we will then remove this
>>post, or the offending passages contained therein, from the Google
>>archive, publicly apologize and retract. My intent is to entertain,
>>and
>>to present articles to USENET readers prior to publication to
>>determine
>>interest, and not to annoy, abuse, humiliate, or in any way cause
>>anyone
>>emotional harm by posting on USENET or elsewhere. Please note that
>>defending myself from harassment and obloquy with rebuttal posts has
>>been deemed a "lawful and legitimate" publication by my legal counsel.
>>If I am not attacked, defamed or harassed, or my copyrighted articles
>>not interrupted nor infringed upon, I clearly do not have a reason to
>>respond with a rebuttal. Please also note that I intend to notify any
>>and all ISP's and web hosts of any annoying or calumnious post, web
>>site
>>or other similar entity about me after I give the offender an
>>op****tunity to retract, apologize and remove said post from the Google
>>archive).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>1. Mr. Sp4 Nigel Brooks said I was asleep in my BEQ when the January
>>13,
>>1969 attacks on the Can Tho Army base and POW camp took place.
>>Statements such as these indicate to me that Sp4 draftee Brooks (two
>>whole years in service as a personnel clerk) is sorely unknowledgeable
>>about Can Tho, the 1969 January attack, the US Army, the duties of an
>>NCO, the US Army in General, the functions of a base under attack, the
>>functions of a large BEQ such as the Melton when such an attack
>>occurs,
>>how the Melton was structured, how the defenses for the Melton were
>>organized and placed on the outside walkways, entrances and roof top
>>of
>>the Melton, life in general in Vietnam for a NCO, especially a Senior
>>NCO housed in a BEQ containing hundreds of enlisted men, and just
>>about
>>everything else you can imagine about this incident. And I am sure I
>>have left out much that Nigel Brooks is clearly clueless about.
>>
>>The Melton BEQ
>>
>>2. The Melton BEQ at Can Tho Vietnam was an old French type Hotel that
>>was several stories high that was converted into a large BEQ for
>>enlisted men. Enlisted men from several different units in the Can Tho
>>area occupied the Melton, and I was permanently (and sometimes
>>tem****arily) assigned to that Melton BEQ for quarters. The bottom
>>floor
>>of the BEQ contained our Armory which was more than a company size
>>armory. The old Hotel/BEQ had chicken wire plastered on the front of
>>the
>>hotel all the way up several stories to stop Charlie from driving by
>>on
>>the main street (which ran right in front of the hotel) and lobbing
>>grenades into the hotel, which occurred frequently enough to warrant
>>the
>>chicken wire.
>>
>>
>>2-a. There were also two adjacent buildings to the Melton that were
>>not
>>quite as high as the Melton. Both of those adjacent buildings were
>>whorehouses, and the men in the Melton, from the roof and from their
>>EM
>>club, could see the whores sunning themselves, or doing their
>>ubiquitous
>>wa****ng, chomping rice, and giggling together on their rooftops from
>>the
>>vantage point of the Melton's rooftop NCO and EM Clubs. Moreover, from
>>our rooftop we could also clearly see the Can Tho airfield and base,
>>and
>>in fact we could even see the distant air base at Bein Thuy when all
>>of
>>its lights were on or it was under mortar attack, which also happened
>>frequently.
>>
>>2-b. The Melton had corridor walkways around the outside of each floor
>>and the rooms were entered from the outside corridor. (Typical French
>>Indochina architecture.) My room was near the top of the Melton, and
>>most of the time two other SFC E-7's and I represented the ranking
>>NCO's
>>billeted in the Melton. My NCO room was also facing the Can Tho
>>Airbase.
>>
>>2-c. There was an extremely narrow and dangerous stone spiral
>>staircase
>>in the middle of the Hotel that led all the way up to the rooftop.
>>(That
>>staircase was hard enough to navigate sober, not to mention after a
>>night of drinking and poker, and to get to your room you had to
>>navigate
>>that staircase if you were in one of the clubs on the roof). The roof
>>of
>>the BEQ was where I and the rest of the NCO's spent most of our time
>>eating, drinking and playing poker and watching the whores do their
>>thing.
>>
>>Tag the Whore
>>
>>3. The side of the Hotel between the Hotel and the first Whorehouse
>>contained thousands of empty beer cans, about one story high, that
>>represented evidence of thousands of past beer can tosses at the
>>whores
>>by the men. Some men found great s****t in tossing empty (and some not
>>so
>>empty) beer cans at the whores when they came out on their roofs to do
>>whatever whores do on roofs. Sometimes the whores would carry little
>>umbrellas and run as fast as they could when they were on their roofs
>>due to the barrage of beer cans their presence was sure to evoke each
>>time they ventured out onto their roofs. Some of the whores would
>>intelligently run out of their roof door, stop, wait a second then
>>quickly run back into the door just before the barrage of beer cans
>>arrived. The whores became very adroit at ducking, dodging and faking
>>out the barrages of beer cans thrown at them. There also was much
>>gambling, hoots and laughter involved with those beer can tosses, and
>>there was little the NCO's could do to stop the men from their game of
>>"tag the whore." And of course some of the NCO's were also
>>participants
>>in that tag the whore game - (I won't mention which ones).
>>
>>3-a. The whores would pay back the men by stealing one of their boots
>>whenever the men visited the whorehouses. It was a common site on
>>payday
>>to see several men limping back from one of the whorehouses with only
>>one boot on amidst the howls and catcalls from the other men that
>>spotted them trying to sneak back to the Melton. Trying to sneak back
>>into the Melton with one boot missing became a Chinese pennant
>>depicting
>>a recent visit to one of the whorehouses. I assume the whores would
>>steal a left boot then a right boot, and so on. Exactly how they
>>matched
>>them up later I do not know - not caring much at the time how whores
>>market GI footwear. Hell, they might even be boiling those boots and
>>eating them as far as I know considering I have yet to see something a
>>Vietnamese whore would not do for two dollars MPC or so.
>>
>>
>>
>>4. All in all, and not counting the many times that Hotel came under
>>attack in one way or another, it was not a bad place to be housed in
>>Can
>>Tho. The Melton certainly was entertaining almost on a daily basis,
>>and
>>there was never a dull moment. One payday in fact I remember about a
>>hundred men brought their tape recorders out of their rooms and
>>blasted
>>Bob Dylan's "No No No It Ain't Me Babe" song/sonnet on full volume. We
>>NCO's screwed up that day and allowed hard liquor to be brought into
>>the
>>EM club for what the men claimed was a "special party." The entire
>>Hotel
>>was rocking and vibrating, and even the whores came out on their roofs
>>to see what was going on. Even Vietnamese civilians walking down the
>>street in front of the Hotel were also stopping and watching the Hotel
>>in amazed curiosity. Our guards at the front of the Hotel had to chase
>>crowds away that day. I always remember it as the day the men all went
>>crazy - which duty in Can Tho was known to do to American GI's from
>>time
>>to time.
>>
>>My Duty Station Was in the Can Tho Army Base
>>
>>5. Note first that Sp4 Nigel Brooks says my military records state I
>>was
>>assigned to the 51st Maintenance Company in Can Tho for duty. Sp4
>>Nigel
>>Brooks is full of **** as usual. My military records prove otherwise,
>>and I even found a morning re****t noting I was assigned to the 51st
>>only
>>for rations and quarters and my duty assignment was to a completely
>>different and very large unit located on the Can Tho Army base. (I
>>will
>>send the morning re****t to one of my independent experts for
>>verification, but more on that later).
>>
>>5-a. Bottom Line: I was very familiar with the Can Tho Army base, and
>>I
>>could see both the Airfield and my duty station from the roof of the
>>Melton. I could even tell from the roof when my Colonel was in or out
>>by
>>looking for his parked jeep in his parking spot in front of my duty
>>station - which at times was good information to know. From my vantage
>>point on the roof of the Melton, and with my Binoculars, I could also
>>easily see the faces of the men at the Can Tho base, the base's
>>buildings, the Airfield, the POW camp and the faces of the men and
>>prisoners at that camp, and just about everything else in that area
>>with
>>very good clarity. (The POW camp and some of the ARVN positions were
>>along the side the Can Tho Army Airbase on the south side just across
>>the wire).
>>
>>6. We had set up an NCO club of sorts on the roof and it was cool up
>>there and even during the rainy season there was enough cover to say
>>on
>>the roof. Immediately outside of my room at the Melton, and to the
>>right
>>of my entrance door, there was located a corner section of the
>>corridor
>>t walkway around the Hotel. In each corner of the Melton's outside
>>corridor we had built a sandbagged defensive position with a Pig
>>mounted
>>with its ammo boxes on the floor. (Pig=M-60 Machine Gun). On the
>>Rooftop
>>we also had built M-60 positions, and one Ma Duce position. There were
>>men that were assigned to all of our defensive machine gun positions,
>>and there were also men assigned to rifle and grenadier positions at
>>various locations in and around the Hotel. We also had assigned men to
>>communications, rations, water bearers, ammo bearers, etc. . . .
>>
>>The Melton sup****ted large iron doors on the front entrance, and guard
>>positions with drag wire (Barbed and Razor wire that can be dragged
>>together to form a wire barrier) in front of the Hotel and at all side
>>entrances. On alert we would button up, bring our guards inside, and
>>they could monitor the front of the hotel from their inside battle
>>positions. All battle stations at the Melton had to be instantly
>>manned
>>in case of any attack on Can Tho or upon an attack on anything near us
>>(we were located in a suburb of the City of Can Tho) or of course upon
>>any attack on the Can Tho base itself. In fact, when I was located at
>>the Melton, we even went on alert and took battle stations at times
>>whenever Bein Thuy was attacked, which occurred often enough to become
>>bothersome for the men. Think of the Melton as a Navy ****p at sea, and
>>you will get the idea of our very necessary defensive positions.
>>
>>6-a. So Nigel Brook's snide comment that I was fast asleep in my BEQ
>>when that January 1969 major attack occurred on the Can Tho base and
>>POW
>>camp is about as idiotic and preposterous as you can now imagine. Sp4
>>Nigel Books clearly does not have a clue about the US Army, nor the
>>Melton, nor anything about my duties in Can Tho, nor about how we
>>defended ourselves, nor about alerts, nor anything about that attack
>>in
>>1969. I do. Why? Because I was there.
>>
>>Here is what I saw, and what I was told by the MP's the next day:
>>
>>7. S****adic firing from ARVN positions far out on the left flank of
>>the
>>Can Tho base woke me at about 0030 that morning. The ARVN's were
>>shooting at something, which was not that uncommon, but this was
>>machine
>>gun fire, and lots of it. I and a few other NCO's immediately dressed
>>and went up to the roof with our high-powered binoculars to see what
>>was
>>going on. There were no sirens going off, and the Can Tho base was
>>quiet. Nevertheless, off to our left the ARVN's certainly were
>>shooting
>>at something. There were a lot of tracers going out from the ARVN
>>positions, but none coming back. So I thought they were just shooting
>>at
>>shadows which they did from time to time. (I am not a fan of the
>>ARVN -
>>and for good reason. Even that night they wildly fired at our base
>>camp
>>when the full attack was underway, but thankfully, as usual, they hit
>>Maggie's Drawers).
>>
>>Once again, in more detail, here is what I saw:
>>
>>8. The ARVN small arms fire had us watching but not calling for an
>>alert
>>because ARVN firing at shadows was not that unfrequent. However, as I
>>was standing on the roof watching the ARVN fire, and I don't remember
>>the exact time but it was on or around 0130, a "WUMPH" explosion
>>(usually that noise indicated incoming) suddenly occurred on the Can
>>Tho
>>Airbase. The Melton was only about three miles from the base as you
>>drive but much closer as the Crow flies, and the explosion was easy to
>>see and hear. Then after that first explosion drew my instant
>>attention,
>>I could positively and without question see two vehicles speeding down
>>the Airbase Tarmac and a series of explosions were following them.
>>
>>8-a. All the initial explosions from the vehicles occurred in
>>approximately 30 seconds, and after perhaps the third small explosion,
>>then the big ones started to occur. When the big explosions started to
>>occur on the Airfield, (probably satchel charges) the vehicles raced
>>to
>>the south side of the Airfield, found an access road that ran along
>>the
>>side our wire, and started unloading all kinds of fire on the POW camp
>>defenses, which promptly returned the fire. (Mostly ARVN MP's manned
>>the
>>POW camps but there were a few American Army MP advisors assigned
>>there
>>as well). The tracers were producing what looked like red tidal waves
>>of
>>fire coming from and going into the POW camp. All hell was breaking
>>lose, and we called a full alert for the Hotel.
>>
>>8-b. The NCO's always carried their weapons but the lower ranks had to
>>draw them from the Armory, so the men assigned to the M-60 and 50 cal.
>>Positions were first to arrive at their battle stations, and the rest
>>of
>>the men had to rush to draw their weapons and ammo from the Armory.
>>
>>8-c. My section of the roof faced the Can Tho Army base, and the Can
>>Tho
>>base was lit up like a Christmas tree. We also heard some firing
>>behind
>>us toward the whorehouses and we thought Charlie might have positioned
>>some VC on one of the roofs of the whorehouses to keep us in the
>>Hotel.
>>That position was not in my section so when I heard one of our M-60
>>positions open up on that side I radioed the NCO in charge of that
>>section and he said the man on the M-60 said he was fired on from the
>>roof of the whorehouse. To this day I don't know if that is true as I
>>did not see it. But I did see the attack on the base, clearly. By the
>>time I looked back at the Can Tho base after my attention was
>>distracted
>>by one of our M-60's opening up on one of the whorehouses, the two
>>vehicles that were firing on the POW camp had already left their
>>positions and could not been seen. (I was told later those vehicles
>>simply drove away and out the gate). But as I watched satchel charges
>>were still going off on the Airfield, and there was lots of small arms
>>fire coming from all directions, including from the ARVN positions far
>>outside the base.
>>
>>8-d. I don't know exactly how long the battle lasted but it was not
>>long. We however, stayed on full alert until dawn. I was told a couple
>>of whores were shot by one of our M-60's, but I don't know to this day
>>if that rumor was true. It most likely was as probably some of the
>>whores came out on their roof to see what was going on and one of our
>>men took them for VC - or just whores he wanted to shoot - we will
>>never
>>really know. The next day I spoke with a Sergeant MP that was at the
>>POW
>>camp and he told me they thought Charlie had used ambulances again,
>>and
>>that some of the sappers had fired at our aircraft from those
>>vehicles,
>>and some of the sappers had jumped out of those vehicles with satchel
>>charges as the vehicles were rolling down the runway toward the POW
>>Camp. He also said some sappers had come in through the wire. It was a
>>well-coordinated attack on both the airfield and the POW camp.
>>
>>8-e. Some of what I am saying here is hearsay because it came from the
>>opinion of an MP Sergeant, but I sure as hell saw those vehicles, and
>>so
>>did he. Whether they were actual Ambulances or other types of
>>vehicles,
>>who knows and who cares, they certainly did drive down the Tarmac and
>>either shoot our Aircraft with M-79's or RPG's, and then attacked the
>>POW camp.
>>
>>
>>
>>Now that we all know what happened, let's deal with some of Nigel's
>>more
>>recent lies:
>>
>>9. First, Sp4 Nigel Brooks' is claiming I previously said the
>>Information officers were liars back when John Kerry was running for
>>office. Nothing could be further from the truth. The testimony of the
>>information officers in the respect they were ordered to lie was just
>>recently brought to my attention. I did not even read that part of the
>>Winter Solider Congressional testimony back then, only the accounts of
>>some of the Ghengis Kahn type raping and pillaging, and I said I
>>certainly never had seen anything like those events.
>>
>>10. But when the actual information commissioned officer confirms that
>>MACV ordered him to lie in his re****ts and accounts of battles, and
>>that
>>fact is confirmed and corroborated by the two Brigade level
>>information
>>Specialists, and even confirmed by a Marine Information Specialist,
>>and
>>then again corroborated by independent news men assigned to Vietnam by
>>their agencies, only a complete and utter smear merchant and/or moron
>>would claim all of those people are lying. And if that is not enough,
>>I
>>have read accounts of events in the 25th Unit Newspaper that I
>>personally *knew* were lies. So I can confirm these unit articles and
>>after action re****ts that Nigel Brooks loves to claim are the
>>"official
>>accounts" of what happened are mostly bull****, and that fact has been
>>confirmed by direct testimony by ALL of the information officers
>>involved in writing and publi****ng them.
>>
>>10-a. All testimony before Congress during an officially convened
>>investigation is considered sworn testimony. Sp4 Nigel Brooks says
>>otherwise. . . weeooooooooooo.
>>
>>11. Sp4 Nigel Brooks is also upset with me using outside independent
>>experts on the US Military and the Law and not simply listening to his
>>gaffs and his smear gang's parroting of his lies and false
>>accusations:
>>
>>Sp4 Brooks said:
>>
>>
>>
>>"As for your experts.......................
>>
>>I am entirely confident that were they to be fully apprized of all of
>>the evidence which has been used to come to the conclusion that you
>>are
>>a serial bull**** artiste - they would agree. In particular the usenet
>>postings that were taken into consideration in determining that both
>>you
>>and ChipC were claiming to have been awarded the Purple Heart for
>>wounds
>>received as a result of enemy action. I am also confident that you
>>have
>>never provided those so called "experts" all of the relevant data -
>>however I can assure you that such experts will be given the
>>op****tunity
>>to review the data if necessary."
>>
>>Doug Says: Mr. Brooks, they have already read all of the irrelevant
>>and
>>trumped up so-called evidence you have created out of thin air and
>>they
>>have concluded that not only was the topic of the conversation Cards
>>and
>>not Medals, but also that no honest investigator would make the claims
>>you have posted. Now if you have some more evidence, no typos, no
>>digging discarded posts from waste baskets, and no claims that my
>>typist
>>and I had to read previous statements Chip had made via mind reading
>>or
>>soothsaying, then I will be more than happy to present to them any
>>additional evidence you might wish to present, that is if it is real
>>and
>>not goofy and self-serving conclusions based upon your self-acclaimed
>>"soothsaying, crystal balls, and irrelevant bull****."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>11. Sp4 Brooks Finds Yet Another Discarded Typo!
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Sp4 Brooks said:
>>
>>"Now - About that claim you spent 30 years in the military and that
>>your
>>last
>>command was an MI command (http://tinyurl.com/vyrt8).
My investigation
>>determined your military service was:
>>
>>USMC July 21, 1961 - Oct 19, 1961
>>US Army June 18, 1962 - January 20, 1970
>>
>>Whats that about 8-9 years?
>>
>>My investigation also determined that rather than being an MI command
>>(I
>>assume by MI you meant Military Intelligence or I guess you could try
>>and
>>spin the **** out of it and come up with something in MI that matches
>>recruiting) - your last assignment was that of a Field Recruiter at
>>Lancaster Pennsylvania.
>>
>>Nigel Brooks
>>
>>Doug's Rebuttal: First, your post above is a forgery. I removed that
>>post long ago and announced when I did the 30-year bit was a typo. I
>>did
>>another search on my name and the phrase "30 years in the military"
>>and
>>the post cannot be found on the Google archive. My God Brooks, is this
>>yet ANOTHER discarded typo post you and SteveL have removed from my
>>waste basket to try and defame and smear me with?
>>BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
>>
>>Post reference:
>>
>><u3ig78sfq9s121@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>>Mr. Brooks, you have been told several times the "30 years" was a
>>typo.
>>And you have also been told that my last assignment as a "Station
>>Commander" for a recruiting station dealt with MI issues that involved
>>undercover MI agents working in the schools around my Station. The SDS
>>were breaking into recruiting offices and doing other nasty things and
>>me dealing with the MI undercover guys was very im****tant at the time.
>>
>>(Note that Sp4 Brooks lies about my military records and says I was
>>only
>>a "Field Recruiter" at the Lancaster, Pa recruiting station. Yet my
>>records show I was officially titled the "Station Commander" of that
>>station, and I was also the ranking officer for all recruiting
>>services,
>>US Army, Marines and Navy at that location. All of the undercover MI
>>guys (a PFC and A Sp4) received their instructions through me, and I
>>debriefed them on a regular basis. The intelligence they provided in
>>respect to when we could process our recruits without interference
>>from
>>the SDS, and such information proved to be absolutely essential and
>>invaluable to all services recruiting in that area in 1969. Yes I was
>>a
>>commander, and yes I did command MI issues and operatives.
>>
>>The way to prove the "30 year" entry is a typo is to look for any
>>repeat
>>of that 30-year statement, and also look for all the times I said 10
>>years (with reserve time) or nine years of service. You will not find
>>any repeat of 30 years ever, and when Brooks first brought up this
>>typo
>>I told him then it was a typo and I removed the erred post from
>>Google.
>>It appears that Mr. Brooks and SteveL have retrieved yet another one
>>of
>>their forgeries taken directly out of my wastebasket. Talk about
>>unethical and fraudulent, could any two smear merchants be more
>>obvious
>>that Sp4 Brooks and SteveL/Jim McCulloch?
>>
>>
>>
>>Here are a couple of references to my last assignment that Sp4 Brooks
>>is
>>clearly trying to hide - note also in this post I reveal where Jim
>>McCulloch was "rewriting what I had actually said" and was presenting
>>his own forgery rewrite as if I had said what he wrote in a previous
>>thread. This was common for SteveL and his SDS chums. October 2007
>>repeat: http://tinyurl.com/3nvy9d
>>
>>http://tinyurl.com/4to7ks
>>
>>"Also, Mr. Uy Uy knows that "Personnel Sergeants" never type up
>>anything. And my last assignment in the US Army was that of a Station
>>Commander of a Recruiting Station in Lancaster, Pa, designed for
>>recruiting and some MI work. I did not deal in personnel (but wait my
>>MOS still was that of a Personnel Senior NCO! - How can that be Mr. Uy
>>UY and Nigel Brooks laughingly claim that no Enlisted Personnel ever
>>perform duties outside of their primary MOS -of course anyone that was
>>ever in the US military knows that ridiculous claim is a lie).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>12. Mr. Brooks, I will tell you what a lawyer told me recently about
>>your posts. He said that "reading your posts about me has become
>>somewhat of a game with him, as he knows somewhere in that post there
>>will be a lie, a fraud or a distortion of some kind - and it is
>>getting
>>to be fun to find them." (Or words to that effect). Mr Brooks when
>>your
>>posts are removed from the dregs, psychos and parrots that you
>>insulate
>>yourself with on the newsgroup, and away from those that you have
>>conned
>>into believing you due to all those fake Federal Agent claims, REAL
>>experts, lawyers, and even Web Managers shake their heads in utter
>>disbelief at your outrageous fraud, lies, forgeries, distortions and
>>categorical misrepresentations, not to mention your production of
>>slanted and clearly biased " evidence" to try and prove your
>>defamation.
>>
>>12-a. Some examples are: (1). You always try to use hearsay as
>>evidence
>>against first hand witness accounts to defame the first hand witness.
>>You have not only done this to me, but to several other people that
>>tried to post their experiences on this newsgroup. You have a pattern
>>of
>>using fraud and hearsay to defame people, and your gang chimes in on
>>your fraud so they can "howl down" the truth with absolute hearsay
>>bull****. That act alone has experts in investigation and the law
>>shaking their heads in utter disbelief.
>>
>>(2) If any hard evidence proves you wrong, you snip it out of your
>>replies and try to hide it. Just like you snipped out all of those
>>other
>>eyewitnesses to the 1969 Can Tho attack that contradicted your hearsay
>>version, and agreed with me that more than just satchel charges were
>>used, and there were vehicles involved in the attack. Instead of
>>accepting the fact that other eyewitnesses have confirmed what I said,
>>you tried to hide it.
>>
>>(3) You absolutely LOVE typos, errors, and such because of course they
>>can be exploited and distorted into something the author clearly did
>>not
>>mean to convey, and therefore you can fraudulently make the author
>>seem
>>like he was saying something preposterous, false or idiotic. You even
>>dig posts out of an author's waste basked and present them on USENET
>>as
>>an "intentional" posting on USENET. My experts also cannot believe you
>>would try to con the readers into believing that a post removed for
>>error was intentional, and the corrected version was the false and
>>erred
>>post! No one but your goons could be stupid enough to believe such
>>obvious bull**** Mr. Brooks. You also hide and completely ignore any
>>previous statements by any author explaining or correcting a typo,
>>error
>>or statement you are trying to distort and fraudulently misrepresent
>>as
>>an intentional statement by that Author.
>>
>>(4). You LOVE to forge your own context or misrepresentation into
>>someone else's post so you can alter the context and then use your own
>>forgery to defame and smear your target victim. Just like you forged
>>the
>>terms (2nd Lieutenant) into my Butter Bar post even after I told you
>>that was not what I meant, and when you forged the term Medal into my
>>typist's PH Card post that was long discarded in a waste basket for an
>>error, and now you have again retrieved a long discarded post with a
>>typo of "30 years" from my waste basket, knowing I told you long ago
>>the
>>"30" was a typo and that post was discarded, so you can use outright
>>fraud to try and defame me further. You are again digging around in my
>>waste basket for errors you can falsely use to defame and smear me -
>>do
>>you realize how sick that sounds to real and honest investigators Mr.
>>Brooks?
>>
>>(5). You try to claim that everything under my account was written by
>>me, and when I presented you with not less than 71 previous Google
>>archived posts that proved you were lying, you then confessed that you
>>could not be sure if I had written anything you were defaming me for.
>>When I pointed out that confession meant your defamation was malicious
>>and the courts would see it that way, you hurriedly lied and said your
>>entire confession was nothing but sarcasm which was not evident
>>anywhere
>>in your confession post, and considering it was posted in response to
>>my
>>post containing 71 different archived post proving that others had
>>used
>>my account to post, my lawyers believe you are lying through your
>>teeth,
>>and they think they can prove that fact with even more of your posts.
>>
>>(6). Your tactics of claiming you are going to review "official
>>government records" to prove your howls against your victims are true,
>>and then when those very records prove you lied, you distort,
>>misrepresent, lie some more, and hide all the entries in those records
>>that prove your lied through your teeth about your victims' past
>>military service. You said I performed nothing but Personnel Sergeant
>>duties in Vietnam, you lied. You said I was assigned to the 1/27th as
>>a
>>Personnel Sergeant, you lied. You hid my second assignment in the
>>25th.
>>You said I was assigned from the 25th to the 51st Maintenance Company
>>in
>>Can Tho for duty, that is a lie. You said I performed duty for the
>>51st
>>Maintenance company and you tried to find how many casualties that
>>unit
>>incurred, but you know I did not perform duty for that company. You
>>also
>>lied about me being reassigned out of Can Tho for the last two months
>>I
>>was in Vietnam. You lied about my reassignment to the states, you lied
>>about my discharge, you lied about my MOS, you lied about my general
>>duties in Vietnam, (there were NO personnel offices in Can Tho you
>>screaming moron) you lied and distorted and hid and omitted anything
>>that would prove you have been lying about me all along.
>>
>>All this is what is going to the experts and to the courts if you do
>>not
>>find another target smear victim to lie about Mr. Brooks. And you call
>>me a "bull****er?" BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.
>>
>>Doug Grant (Tm)
>>
>>
>
> Snip Cyberstalking.
|
