NIGEL BROOKS PURPLE HEART FRAUD PROVIDED TO INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTS

April 20, 2008

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:46:05 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"

<dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:

<snip my headers, which for some reason Dougie thinks he needs to

quote>

>>> If you reveal your true name then I can then

>>>determine if law enforcment is truly looking for you under your real

>>>name,

>>

>> What are you. Three years old?

>

>Doug Says: Was that too hard for you to understand?

No it was apparently too hard for you to understand. It was a lame

LAME attempt by you to get me to reveal my details to you

personally, not to law enforcement!

An insult to a three year old's intelligence.

That's what this whole thing is about.

You want my personal details for YOUR purposes.

> The only name I

>have is the SteveLon@ntlworld.com and I have filed a complaint against

>that anonymous name, and when I find out who is behind that name I will

>file more complaints.

Why do you need to wait for a full name? You issued a suit against

3000 John Does last year (except it failed.....)

>>

>>>but I assure you they want to know who you are under the name of

>>>SteveLon@NTLworld.com.

>>

>> Good. Give me their contact details or tell them they can email me.

>

>> Be warned though. I will set them straight about you.

>>

>> Count on it.

>>

>> So beware Doug. If you have actually been crazy enough to file a

>> complaint, I'm sure that they've already figured you out as a

>> relatively harmless kook.

>

> Once they find out that you've parlayed that kook complaint into a

>> public smear that a citizen is being actively sought by law

>> enforcement, I'm fairly sure that will rebound on your head.

>

>Doug Says: More threats from SteveL, and yet another FBI forgery

>below, how quaint, and how typical. And his promise to lie to law

>enforcement about me is making me giddy. However, let me be clear on

>this issue. If I provide you with the law enforcement contact you are

>saying you will contact them yourself and reveal your true identity to

>them?

What goes on between me and them is between me and them. Are you

claiming dominion over law enforcement now? Your wishes are not a

factor. And your obstructive demands even less so.

> Moreover, if I file a complaint against SteveLon@ntlworld, then

>you can bet the law enforcement officer is looking for that person to

>determine (1) jurisdiction, (2) his real name, and (3) his side of the

>story.

> It is called an "investigation" and you can bet that is going on

>and will continue at every level necessary until you are brought into

>court and a Judge gets to listen to all of your lies, fraud and

>cyberstalking, replete with all the past evidence.

Weasel words and backpedaling. If it even exists, your alleged

complaint is in someone's inbox and awaiting "investigation"

(i.e.trashing).

I strongly suggest you stop making claims like "you must know by now

that law enforcement officers are looking for SteveL". Or else you may

find that your local police department or FBI office has a complaint

on their file against you!

>>

>> I will certainly do my best to ensure that happens.

>

>Doug Says: I have absolutely no doubt you will continue your

>cyberstalking, lies, fraud and forgeries, not to mention your false

>accusations directly to law enforcement, in fact, I am counting on it.

>Please do, PLEASE do.

Great. Either give me the contact details of the person(s) handling

the case and the case number, or tell them to email me.

They have my full permission to do so.

DO NOT supply the generic contact details of the police station or FBI

office. Supply the phone number or email address of the person(s)

handling the case. Before I do anything I want proof that there really

is a case; that it's not yet another burp of your imagination.

If you've had paperwork back from them then scan it and post it to

your "cyberstalkers" web thingie. If you've really had such, you

should be jumping at the chance to prove something for a change.

Of course those pre-conditions can all be pre-empted if they contact

me by email.

>>

>> You trust "law enforcement" to see through lies and make the right

>> calls don't you?

>>

>> So lets's have their contact details or tell them they can email me.

>

>Doug Says: I agree completely, but why do you want the contact details?

How stupid are you?

To contact them!! You just claimed in public that "law enforcement

officers" were "looking for" me.

That's a very serious accusation.

And it needs sorting out.

Or are you admitting that statement is over-spun lying bullshit?

"Libel" even?

>Are you going to contact them and reveal your true name, or just more

>anonymous cyberstalking replete with your forgeries, fraud and lies, in

>a desperate hope they will believe your hype and fraud?

Don't you trust them to be able to see through the lies? Or is that

what's worrying you?

Anyway, why are you hindering "law enforcement" from talking to the

person you say they are "looking for"?

Some might call that Obstruction of Justice.

> Moreover, they

>are not going to deal with you via email while you remain anonymous,

Did they tell you that? Can I quote you there?

>they are trying to determine if they have any jurisdiction over you, or

>if I need to file complaints with other law enforcement, such as the FBI

>or even Interpol since you claim to be posting in the UK and therefore

>are subject to the 1967 UK anti-harassment act.

So who's investigating this "case" anyway, you or "law enforcement"?

What makes you think you can prevent "law enforcement" from contacting

their man, by whatever means necessary?

Seeing that your previous post went out of its way to say in the

strongest terms that I am being sought by the law, this sudden coyness

and hesitation might be a little confusing. But considering its source

it's not surprising in the least.

Some little corner of your brain is going "uh oh".

>

>This sounds like when you promised to have your lawyer contact my lawyer

>when my lawyer emailed you.

No it doesn't.

It sounds like you .

SAME SCAM. DIFFERENT DAY.

Then: "Tell me your real name so I can sue you"

Now : "Tell me your real name so law enforcement can question you.

Never mind about contacting them yourself!. You'll tell ME FIRST Get

it? ME ME ME!!!!!"

> Now

>if you can verify through your lawyer that you will provide your true

>name to law enforcement then you can bet I will provide the details of

>my offical complaint, and the name of the law enforcement officer that

>is presently investigating that complaint to your lawyer within five

>minutes after my lawyer receives contact from him. If you refuse this

>offer, then you are clearly lying again, I will just wait for inevitable

>revealing of your true identity.

I'm sure that "law enforcement" will be very interested to learn that

you are controlling their "investigation", and their access to

information, and are setting obstructive conditions under which they

can contact the person they are "looking for".

You know. If I had a tiny fraction of your overwhelming pathological

dishonesty, I would use your response here to claim that you are

guilty of obstructing justice, quote statutes and shout that they

prove you are a criminal. Then I'd phone the police or FBI about it.

and then I'd make a post saying that the authorities are "looking for"

DGVREIMAN!

Sound familiar?

Of course I might also be worried about leaving myself open to a

charge of false filing. But then again, unlike you, I'm sane.

BTW, is false filing a felony or misdemeanor in Washington state?

Stop claiming that "law enforcement officers" are "looking for" me in

one post, and then invoke spurious reasons to prevent them from

contacting me in the next.

>This is the last response on this issue you will receive from me,

So does this mean that you're NOT going to give me the contact details

of the person handling the case, or the case number, or tell them they

have permission to email me?

That you're NOT going to scan and post the official paperwork proving

that there has been an official complaint filed?

I understand. You realize at some level what you've done and you're

looking for a way out. Good Idea.

If that's your way of realizing your mistake and ceasing your false

accusation that "law enforcement officers" are "looking for" me, then

I can live with that in lieu of an actual apology.

But I'd better see no further such accusations.

>however, I will continue to download your posts as evidence against you.

>I will however provide you with additional cease and desist notices from

>several sources.

DO NOT email me personally. The "law enforcement officers" have

permission, NOT you.

April 20, 2008

What's so funny is that you guys sound so serious. You are just kidding aren't you?

SteveL wrote:

> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:46:05 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"

> <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:

>

> <snip my headers, which for some reason Dougie thinks he needs to

> quote>

>

>>>> If you reveal your true name then I can then

>>>>determine if law enforcment is truly looking for you under your real

>>>>name,

>>>

>>>What are you. Three years old?

>>

>>Doug Says: Was that too hard for you to understand?

>

> No it was apparently too hard for you to understand. It was a lame

> LAME attempt by you to get me to reveal my details to you

> personally, not to law enforcement!

>

> An insult to a three year old's intelligence.

>

> That's what this whole thing is about.

>

> You want my personal details for YOUR purposes.

>

>> The only name I

>>have is the SteveLon@ntlworld.com and I have filed a complaint against

>>that anonymous name, and when I find out who is behind that name I will

>>file more complaints.

>

> Why do you need to wait for a full name? You issued a suit against

> 3000 John Does last year (except it failed.....)

>

>>>>but I assure you they want to know who you are under the name of

>>>>SteveLon@NTLworld.com.

>>>

>>>Good. Give me their contact details or tell them they can email me.

>>

>>>Be warned though. I will set them straight about you.

>>>

>>>Count on it.

>>>

>>>So beware Doug. If you have actually been crazy enough to file a

>>>complaint, I'm sure that they've already figured you out as a

>>>relatively harmless kook.

>>

>>Once they find out that you've parlayed that kook complaint into a

>>

>>>public smear that a citizen is being actively sought by law

>>>enforcement, I'm fairly sure that will rebound on your head.

>>

>>Doug Says: More threats from SteveL, and yet another FBI forgery

>>below, how quaint, and how typical. And his promise to lie to law

>>enforcement about me is making me giddy. However, let me be clear on

>>this issue. If I provide you with the law enforcement contact you are

>>saying you will contact them yourself and reveal your true identity to

>>them?

>

> What goes on between me and them is between me and them. Are you

> claiming dominion over law enforcement now? Your wishes are not a

> factor. And your obstructive demands even less so.

>

>> Moreover, if I file a complaint against SteveLon@ntlworld, then

>>you can bet the law enforcement officer is looking for that person to

>>determine (1) jurisdiction, (2) his real name, and (3) his side of the

>>story.

>>It is called an "investigation" and you can bet that is going on

>>and will continue at every level necessary until you are brought into

>>court and a Judge gets to listen to all of your lies, fraud and

>>cyberstalking, replete with all the past evidence.

>

> Weasel words and backpedaling. If it even exists, your alleged

> complaint is in someone's inbox and awaiting "investigation"

> (i.e.trashing).

>

> I strongly suggest you stop making claims like "you must know by now

> that law enforcement officers are looking for SteveL". Or else you may

> find that your local police department or FBI office has a complaint

> on their file against you!

>

>>>I will certainly do my best to ensure that happens.

>>

>>Doug Says: I have absolutely no doubt you will continue your

>>cyberstalking, lies, fraud and forgeries, not to mention your false

>>accusations directly to law enforcement, in fact, I am counting on it.

>>Please do, PLEASE do.

>

> Great. Either give me the contact details of the person(s) handling

> the case and the case number, or tell them to email me.

>

> They have my full permission to do so.

>

> DO NOT supply the generic contact details of the police station or FBI

> office. Supply the phone number or email address of the person(s)

> handling the case. Before I do anything I want proof that there really

> is a case; that it's not yet another burp of your imagination.

>

> If you've had paperwork back from them then scan it and post it to

> your "cyberstalkers" web thingie. If you've really had such, you

> should be jumping at the chance to prove something for a change.

>

> Of course those pre-conditions can all be pre-empted if they contact

> me by email.

>

>>>You trust "law enforcement" to see through lies and make the right

>>>calls don't you?

>>>

>>>So lets's have their contact details or tell them they can email me.

>>

>>Doug Says: I agree completely, but why do you want the contact details?

>

> How stupid are you?

>

> To contact them!! You just claimed in public that "law enforcement

> officers" were "looking for" me.

>

> That's a very serious accusation.

>

> And it needs sorting out.

>

> Or are you admitting that statement is over-spun lying bullshit?

>

> "Libel" even?

>

>>Are you going to contact them and reveal your true name, or just more

>>anonymous cyberstalking replete with your forgeries, fraud and lies, in

>>a desperate hope they will believe your hype and fraud?

>

> Don't you trust them to be able to see through the lies? Or is that

> what's worrying you?

>

> Anyway, why are you hindering "law enforcement" from talking to the

> person you say they are "looking for"?

>

> Some might call that Obstruction of Justice.

>

>>Moreover, they

>>are not going to deal with you via email while you remain anonymous,

>

> Did they tell you that? Can I quote you there?

>

>>they are trying to determine if they have any jurisdiction over you, or

>>if I need to file complaints with other law enforcement, such as the FBI

>>or even Interpol since you claim to be posting in the UK and therefore

>>are subject to the 1967 UK anti-harassment act.

>

> So who's investigating this "case" anyway, you or "law enforcement"?

>

> What makes you think you can prevent "law enforcement" from contacting

> their man, by whatever means necessary?

>

> Seeing that your previous post went out of its way to say in the

> strongest terms that I am being sought by the law, this sudden coyness

> and hesitation might be a little confusing. But considering its source

> it's not surprising in the least.

>

> Some little corner of your brain is going "uh oh".

>

>>This sounds like when you promised to have your lawyer contact my lawyer

>>when my lawyer emailed you.

>

> No it doesn't.

>

> It sounds like you .

>

> SAME SCAM. DIFFERENT DAY.

>

> Then: "Tell me your real name so I can sue you"

>

> Now : "Tell me your real name so law enforcement can question you.

> Never mind about contacting them yourself!. You'll tell ME FIRST Get

> it? ME ME ME!!!!!"

>

>> Now

>>if you can verify through your lawyer that you will provide your true

>>name to law enforcement then you can bet I will provide the details of

>>my offical complaint, and the name of the law enforcement officer that

>>is presently investigating that complaint to your lawyer within five

>>minutes after my lawyer receives contact from him. If you refuse this

>>offer, then you are clearly lying again, I will just wait for inevitable

>>revealing of your true identity.

>

> I'm sure that "law enforcement" will be very interested to learn that

> you are controlling their "investigation", and their access to

> information, and are setting obstructive conditions under which they

> can contact the person they are "looking for".

>

> You know. If I had a tiny fraction of your overwhelming pathological

> dishonesty, I would use your response here to claim that you are

> guilty of obstructing justice, quote statutes and shout that they

> prove you are a criminal. Then I'd phone the police or FBI about it.

> and then I'd make a post saying that the authorities are "looking for"

> DGVREIMAN!

>

> Sound familiar?

>

> Of course I might also be worried about leaving myself open to a

> charge of false filing. But then again, unlike you, I'm sane.

>

> BTW, is false filing a felony or misdemeanor in Washington state?

>

> Stop claiming that "law enforcement officers" are "looking for" me in

> one post, and then invoke spurious reasons to prevent them from

> contacting me in the next.

>

> <snip a bunch of repetitive back pedaling>

>

>>This is the last response on this issue you will receive from me,

>

> So does this mean that you're NOT going to give me the contact details

> of the person handling the case, or the case number, or tell them they

> have permission to email me?

>

> That you're NOT going to scan and post the official paperwork proving

> that there has been an official complaint filed?

>

> I understand. You realize at some level what you've done and you're

> looking for a way out. Good Idea.

>

> If that's your way of realizing your mistake and ceasing your false

> accusation that "law enforcement officers" are "looking for" me, then

> I can live with that in lieu of an actual apology.

>

> But I'd better see no further such accusations.

>

>>however, I will continue to download your posts as evidence against you.

>>I will however provide you with additional cease and desist notices from

>>several sources.

>

> DO NOT email me personally. The "law enforcement officers" have

> permission, NOT you.

>

April 20, 2008

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 03:30:24 -0700, "Dr. James West, Ph.D."

<nada@nobull.com> wrote:

>

>What's so funny is that you guys sound so serious. You are just kidding aren't you?

Shhhhh

April 20, 2008

"Dr. James West, Ph.D." <nada@nobull.com> wrote in message

news:BbudnVrsSfOghpbVnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@toastnet...

>

> What's so funny is that you guys sound so serious. You are just kidding

> aren't you?

>

We're as serious as you are in your postings.

Fetch

--

Nigel Brooks

April 20, 2008

In article <1ImdneUYoKgCRZfVnZ2dnUVZ_tqtnZ2d@comcast.com>,

dgvreiman@comcast.net says...

> Moreover, if I file a complaint against SteveLon@ntlworld, then

> you can bet the law enforcement officer is looking for that person to

> determine (1) jurisdiction, (2) his real name, and (3) his side of the

> story. It is called an "investigation" and you can bet that is going on

> and will continue at every level necessary until you are brought into

> court and a Judge gets to listen to all of your lies, fraud and

> cyberstalking, replete with all the past evidence.

So what lies do you plan to tell the law enforcement officials toget

them to bother with your silly claim ?

--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"

- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

April 20, 2008

In article <2N-dnQcAJNfhY5fVnZ2dnUVZ8uOdnZ2d@giganews.com>,

stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com says...

> On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 22:46:05 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"

> <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:

>

> <snip my headers, which for some reason Dougie thinks he needs to

> quote>

I think he believes it will intimidate people...

Like how he reposts his entire screed in each reply even though most of

us are studious in snipping it away so as to not violate his percieved

copyright...

>

> >>> If you reveal your true name then I can then

> >>>determine if law enforcment is truly looking for you under your real

> >>>name,

> >>

> >> What are you. Three years old?

> >

> >Doug Says: Was that too hard for you to understand?

>

> No it was apparently too hard for you to understand. It was a lame

> LAME attempt by you to get me to reveal my details to you

> personally, not to law enforcement!

It wouldn't suprise me if he starts trying to call people and pretend to

be a "special investigator"

>

--

"Oh Norman, listen! The loons are calling!"

- Katherine Hepburn, "On Golden Pond"

April 20, 2008

"Dai Uy" <Dai-Uy@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

news:Dai-Uy-E3B0A1.06093820042008@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...

> In article <m6GdncyBCMP3gJfVnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@comcast.com>,

> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>> PURPLE HEART QUESTIONS PROVIDED TO INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTS

>

> - - - - - [oft repeated rant deleted] - - - - -

>

> Whatever...

>

> Look at yourself Doug. Really!

>

> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/journal67.html

> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/abuse18.html

> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/terrorism.html

>

> If it is true that you are actually a service connected

> veteran, the DVA is there to help you. If not, there are ample

> Washington state programs anxious to provide assistance. Take

> advantage of these programs.

>

> X-URL: http://tinyurl.com/yqzzks

> WA State Regional Support Network (RSNs) Directory

> Clark County - Clark County RSN 1-800-626-8137

> Clark County RSN - (360) 397-2130

>

> Serving Clark County

> PO Box 5000

> Vancouver, WA 98666-5000

> Toll Free: 1-800-410-1910

> Ombuds Services: 1-866-666-5070

> 24-Hour Crisis Line: 1-800-626-8137

> http://www.clark.wa.gov/mental-health

>

> I tried.

>

> -Dai Uy sends

Doug's Rebuttal: Mr. Rau, your propensity to take sentence fragments

from several different posts, months or years apart, and then splice

them together to try and create a brand-new forgery and fraud you can

then exploit to defame, smear and demonize, indicates to me that you

might know much more about mental health problems than I first thought.

Apparently you have done some research on that topic as your post above

indicates. I congratulate you for your desire to find competent

medical facilities - perhaps you can find a cure at those facilities

for your obvious obsession to smear and defame with lies, fraud,

forgeries, errors and typos you have found in waste baskets, and dreamed

up fantasy nonsense you create by splicing fragments of posts together

that are years apart and relate to completely different topics.

Such as trying to claim the term of "wounds" appeared in the Purple

Heart Card post from Chip or in my typist's reply to him - your lie in

that regard is glaring.

Moreover, see if you can answer these two questions, which were keys to

the opinions of my experts:

1. You nor Brooks nor anyone in your smear gang said a word about that

typo post that was thrown into Google's electronic waste basket until

AFTER that reply was long removed from Google's archives. So why in

world, when I removed that post from Google, and considering no one was

complaining about it, would I tell Google the post topic was about Cards

and not Medals if that was not the truth? I could have said I wanted to

remove the post for any reason. I did not need to give Google the

specific reason I did unless it was the truth.

I did not know at the time when I removed that post that sometime in

the future SteveL (the anonymous cyberstalking and serial liar) would

retrieve that erred post from my waste basket and forge the term "Medal"

into it, or that you and Nigel Brooks would also chime in on the forgery

for the purpose of defaming and smearing me? You and your gang did not

even know my name when that Purple Heart Card post was removed and

Google was informed it was being removed because of the typo and context

of "Cards" not being clear.

Based upon the facts above alone my experts concluded the context of the

post was Cards and not Medals. (And yes I agreed to allow Google to

release my statement about that post when I removed it.) Google has no

reason to lie Mr. Uy Uy - and claiming that I, my typist, Chip, my

experts AND Google are ALL lying, and you, Brooks and SteveL, through

your extraordinary mind reading skills have made a contrary

determination to all involved in the exchange, and it is us that needs

mental care and not you three, is reason enough to blink five times in

an incredulous stare at you three morons right before I and everyone

involved in the exchange fall over laughing!

2. The last sentence of my typist's reply to Chip, clearly proves the

context of the post was not medals and was cards as it references

receiving a Purple Heart Card in a non-combat situation, and if we were

talking about Purple Heart Medals we both know that is impossible.

You can lie, duck, dodge and whine all you want, but this issue has been

taken to INDEPENDENT experts, with no axes to grind, which provide their

expert opinions in courts, and they ALL agree the context of the post

was Cards and not Medals. The preponderance of evidence all points to

that fact, and if you add in all the times prior to that typist's reply

and subsequent to it, which you always ignore, in which I said I did not

have a Purple Heart Medal, that corroboration in which "I said I do not

have a Purple Heart Medal" drives the final nail in the logical and

expert's conclusion the context of my typist's reply intended to be

about Purple Heart Cards issued by the VA and not about the Order of the

Purple Heart Medal. (No "honest" investigator could come to any other

conclusion).

Of course logic, reality, and evidence has always meant very little to

you in our other exchanges, and that is why I took this question to

independent experts, and they agree with me. So whine all you want,

real knowledgeable and honest people will never agree that you could

possibly know the context of something someone else wrote better than

the author of the writing. Mind reading skills not withstanding of

course. (Giggle).

Doug Grant

>

April 20, 2008

On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 10:34:37 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"

<dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>"Dai Uy" <Dai-Uy@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

>news:Dai-Uy-E3B0A1.06093820042008@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...

>> In article <m6GdncyBCMP3gJfVnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@comcast.com>,

>> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:

>>

>>> PURPLE HEART QUESTIONS PROVIDED TO INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTS

>>

>> - - - - - [oft repeated rant deleted] - - - - -

>>

>> Whatever...

>>

>> Look at yourself Doug. Really!

>>

>> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/journal67.html

>> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/abuse18.html

>> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/terrorism.html

>>

>> If it is true that you are actually a service connected

>> veteran, the DVA is there to help you. If not, there are ample

>> Washington state programs anxious to provide assistance. Take

>> advantage of these programs.

>>

>> X-URL: http://tinyurl.com/yqzzks

>> WA State Regional Support Network (RSNs) Directory

>> Clark County - Clark County RSN 1-800-626-8137

>> Clark County RSN - (360) 397-2130

>>

>> Serving Clark County

>> PO Box 5000

>> Vancouver, WA 98666-5000

>> Toll Free: 1-800-410-1910

>> Ombuds Services: 1-866-666-5070

>> 24-Hour Crisis Line: 1-800-626-8137

>> http://www.clark.wa.gov/mental-health

>>

>> I tried.

>>

>> -Dai Uy sends

>

<snip>

> I did not know at the time when I removed that post that sometime in

>the future SteveL (the anonymous cyberstalking and serial liar) would

>retrieve that erred post from my waste basket and forge the term "Medal"

>into it, or that you and Nigel Brooks would also chime in on the forgery

>for the purpose of defaming and smearing me? You and your gang did not

>even know my name when that Purple Heart Card post was removed and

>Google was informed it was being removed because of the typo and context

>of "Cards" not being clear.

Dougie versus reality.

Find the word "medal" in this quote of your post that we all took when

it reappeared on Google. And while you're at it point out the precise

difference between this quote and the original post.

And never mind forging in what you now claim you meant to say. Point

out exactly where this quote differs from the original post.

The answer of course is that it doesn't differ at all.

SCREENSHOT OF FULL POST INCLUDING HEADERS

OF DOOGIE'S CLAIM TO HAVE A PURPLE HEART

http://tinyurl.com/27844x

CUT&PASTED TEXT OF FULL POST

Path:

archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!nntp.cs.ubc.ca!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!west.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net.POSTED!not-for-mail

From: "DGVREIMAN" <dggr...@worldnet.att.net>

Newsgroups:

alt.news-media,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa,alt.politics.usa.congress,alt.security.terrorism

References: <BA6F214A.49173%mcculloch@mail.utexas.edu>

<IrmdnVQJ4LcfSNSjXTWcqw@vel.net>

<_Ov2a.33487$rq4.2524762@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

<MPG.18b50b05a8761ac098a1e2@news-server.neo.rr.com>

<l4acnQOkbIK5zNajXTWc3A@vel.net>

<MPG.18b65e4386da15998a1ec@news-server.neo.rr.com>

<ygx3a.37490$rq4.2911501@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

<MPG.18b8843e745e87ca98a20c@news-server.neo.rr.com>

<n1S3a.38684$rq4.3044256@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

<MPG.18b9c7081c961f5098a239@news-server.neo.rr.com>

Subject: Re: Al Qaeda Says Saddam an Infidel

Lines: 103

X-Priority: 3

X-MSMail-Priority: Normal

X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000

Message-ID:

<WaU3a.38894$rq4.3061374@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:22:46 GMT

NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.82.142.133

X-Complaints-To: abuse@worldnet.att.net

X-Trace: bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net 1045434166 12.82.142.133

(Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:22:46 GMT)

NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 22:22:46 GMT

Organization: AT&T Worldnet

"Chip C" <c...@chipcom.net> wrote in message

news:MPG.18b9c7081c961f5098a239@news-server.neo.rr.com...

> On Sun, 16 Feb 2003 19:56:03 GMT, DGVREIMAN allegedly wrote...

>

> > Doug Says: We declared war on terrorism. Saddam is

supporting,

> > financing, arming, training, aiding and harboring terrorists.

> > Duh. I suspect that you do not have clue about what you are

> > talking about, and I further suspect you have never seen a

shot

> > fired in anger in your life.

>

> I have a Purple Heart and a CAR that proves you wrong, Dougie.

> There are other countries, some that are our allies, who are

much

> more active in supporting and arming terrorists...yet you want

to go

> after Iraq because you don't have the will to go after them.

That, to

> me is cowardice.

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.

>

> > If you think this war is about defending ourselves , you

> > > are indeed delusional. If we wanted to defend ourselves by

> > invading

> > > someone, Iran, North Korea, Syria, Pakistan and France (hee

> > hee, why

> > > not?) would be at the top of the list...Iraq ain't shit.

You

> > are

> > > acting like a panic-stricken wimp...if you are a vet, stand

up

> > and

> > > show some balls.

> >

> > Doug Says: Let me see, you want to cower, run, hide, whine,

cry,

> > appease, and leave Saddam alone, and you call me a

> > "panic-stricken wimp?" Hmmmmm. Saddam is dangerous, and he

> > needs to be removed from power. Once Saddam is gone we will

have

> > the means and the bases to deal with Iran, which is clearly

our

> > next target. And yes I am a vet, and clearly you are not.

> >

>

> Just because you think not going to war tomorrow mean giving

Saddam a

> free ride doesn't make it any more factual. Open your eyes and

look

> at the entire battlefield instead of just through your narrow

gun-

> site. Saddam ain't shit, and puffing him up into some major

threat

> while ignoring the more imminent threats is the sign of a

cowering

> coward. I hate to call a vet a coward...but if you wish to be

> considered such, it is of your own choosing.

Doug Says: What you call me is irrelevant as you certainly do

not have the knowledge nor the information to pass judgment, not

to mention make condescending remarks. Saddam is supporting

terrorism, financing it, and arming terrorists. These terrorists

that Saddam is financing and supporting have already murdered

Americans. Now if you think we should attack someone else, then

say so. But right now Saddam is providing a major resource for

Al-Qeada, Haamas and the Islamic Jihad. All three of those

terrorist organizations have murdered Americans. Further, I am

the one advocating the removal of Saddam, you are the one that is

advocating appeasement, so which of us is the coward again?

If you knew anything about this issue you would realize our war

on terrorism and our desire to depose Saddam are interlinked. We

cannot continue to defeat terrorism unless we eliminate the

resources that terrorism is feeding upon, and one of the main

sources is Saddam. Further, you clearly are not aware that

Saddam declared war on the USA, Britain and Israel on December

27,2000 just ten months prior to the 911 massacres. Now even you

should agree that we remove a tyrant that has openly and public

declared war on the USA.

Doug Grant

>

> --

> Chip C

> Personal site: http://www.chipcom.net/

> Christmas Stories: http://www.christmas-stories.com/

>

> "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees."

> -- Emiliano Zapata

April 20, 2008

"DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:GsydnfSuGqMy45bVnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@comcast.com...

>

> "Dai Uy" <Dai-Uy@hawaii.rr.com> wrote in message

> news:Dai-Uy-E3B0A1.06093820042008@news-server.hawaii.rr.com...

>> In article <m6GdncyBCMP3gJfVnZ2dnUVZ_viunZ2d@comcast.com>,

>> "DGVREIMAN" <dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:

>>

>>> PURPLE HEART QUESTIONS PROVIDED TO INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTS

>>

>> - - - - - [oft repeated rant deleted] - - - - -

>>

>> Whatever...

>>

>> Look at yourself Doug. Really!

>>

>> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/journal67.html

>> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/abuse18.html

>> http://malignantselflove.tripo?d.com/terrorism.html

>>

>> If it is true that you are actually a service connected

>> veteran, the DVA is there to help you. If not, there are ample

>> Washington state programs anxious to provide assistance. Take

>> advantage of these programs.

>>

>> X-URL: http://tinyurl.com/yqzzks

>> WA State Regional Support Network (RSNs) Directory

>> Clark County - Clark County RSN 1-800-626-8137

>> Clark County RSN - (360) 397-2130

>>

>> Serving Clark County

>> PO Box 5000

>> Vancouver, WA 98666-5000

>> Toll Free: 1-800-410-1910

>> Ombuds Services: 1-866-666-5070

>> 24-Hour Crisis Line: 1-800-626-8137

>> http://www.clark.wa.gov/mental-health

>>

>> I tried.

>>

>> -Dai Uy sends

>

> Doug's Rebuttal: Mr. Rau, your propensity to take sentence fragments from

> several different posts, months or years apart, and then splice them

> together to try and create a brand-new forgery and fraud you can then

> exploit to defame, smear and demonize, indicates to me that you might know

> much more about mental health problems than I first thought.

>

> Apparently you have done some research on that topic as your post above

> indicates. I congratulate you for your desire to find competent medical

> facilities - perhaps you can find a cure at those facilities for your

> obvious obsession to smear and defame with lies, fraud, forgeries, errors

> and typos you have found in waste baskets, and dreamed up fantasy nonsense

> you create by splicing fragments of posts together that are years apart

> and relate to completely different topics.

>

> Such as trying to claim the term of "wounds" appeared in the Purple Heart

> Card post from Chip or in my typist's reply to him - your lie in that

> regard is glaring.

>

> Moreover, see if you can answer these two questions, which were keys to

> the opinions of my experts:

>

> 1. You nor Brooks nor anyone in your smear gang said a word about that

> typo post that was thrown into Google's electronic waste basket until

> AFTER that reply was long removed from Google's archives. So why in

> world, when I removed that post from Google, and considering no one was

> complaining about it, would I tell Google the post topic was about Cards

> and not Medals if that was not the truth? I could have said I wanted to

> remove the post for any reason. I did not need to give Google the

> specific reason I did unless it was the truth.

>

> I did not know at the time when I removed that post that sometime in the

> future SteveL (the anonymous cyberstalking and serial liar) would

> retrieve that erred post from my waste basket and forge the term "Medal"

> into it, or that you and Nigel Brooks would also chime in on the forgery

> for the purpose of defaming and smearing me? You and your gang did not

> even know my name when that Purple Heart Card post was removed and Google

> was informed it was being removed because of the typo and context of

> "Cards" not being clear.

>

> Based upon the facts above alone my experts concluded the context of the

> post was Cards and not Medals. (And yes I agreed to allow Google to

> release my statement about that post when I removed it.) Google has no

> reason to lie Mr. Uy Uy - and claiming that I, my typist, Chip, my experts

> AND Google are ALL lying, and you, Brooks and SteveL, through your

> extraordinary mind reading skills have made a contrary determination to

> all involved in the exchange, and it is us that needs mental care and not

> you three, is reason enough to blink five times in an incredulous stare at

> you three morons right before I and everyone involved in the exchange fall

> over laughing!

My experts have concluded that in the exchange with Mr. Ciamaichella on

February 16, 2003 you were claiming to have been awarded the Purple Heart

as depicted in the following link:

http://www.purpleheart.org/Membership/Public/AboutUs/HistoryOrder.aspx

Rather than fall over laughing, they were disgusted.

--

Nigel Brooks

April 20, 2008

On Sat, 19 Apr 2008 09:27:20 -0700, "DGVREIMAN"

<dgvreiman@comcast.net> wrote:

>

>PURPLE HEART QUESTIONS PROVIDED TO INDEPENDENT MILITARY EXPERTS

snip

The posting by Doug "... is a verbose, confused, overreaching and

immature work product..."

--Mac, the Medic

April 20, 2008

"SteveL" <stevelon@deletethisbitntlworld.com> wrote in message

news:SsKdnZ3dq6XqHZbVRVnyjAA@giganews.com...

>

> Find the word "medal" in this quote of your post that we all took when

> it reappeared on Google. And while you're at it point out the precise

> difference between this quote and the original post.

>

> And never mind forging in what you now claim you meant to say. Point

> out exactly where this quote differs from the original post.

>

> The answer of course is that it doesn't differ at all.

>

> SCREENSHOT OF FULL POST INCLUDING HEADERS

> OF DOOGIE'S CLAIM TO HAVE A PURPLE HEART

> http://tinyurl.com/27844x

DOOGIS "CORRECTED POSTING" FROM HIS OWN WEB SITE FOR COMPARISON

http://tinyurl.com/6ez4d9

Please note thap Chip's reference to holding a "CAR" meant "Combat Action

Ribbon".

There was no mention of "cards" at any time in the original exchange.

April 20, 2008