"Big Bear" <bigbear1wh@nativeweb.net> wrote in message
news:vf6dnSpjupr7TKTZnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@comcast.com...

"Pepperoni" wrote
: "!Jones" wrote
: > "Nigel Brooks" wrote:
: >

: > 10 Usenet-bucks says Doug trounces the newby!
: >
: > Jones
:
: I'll take 5UBs worth, but to win he has to trounce the newby
*before* he
: goes the self- destruct routine.

I'm glad this is just a game to you people.

--
Machque (Bear)
Nec Aspera Terrent

"A wannabe is someone who basks in the valor earned by
others." -Norb

Nigel Said:
Well it's not a game when the clown makes threats - but you
certainly can't
take him seriously, he's been thoroughly spanked everywhere
he's been in
usenet. A simple google of dgvreiman,

Nigel Said:
Trouble is - you can never be sure that he was doing the
posting.. Could've
been someone on his team, or a typo by one of his typists who
didn't get his
dictation down right. Or a typist who put a Doug Grant
signature on a Dr
Profe's post in error.
Doug Says: Finally BS Brooks has admitted above that he knows
that I did not post or write or dictate all the lies and
distorions he has been claiming I did. This will look real good
in court. Off to the lawyer with this one/

--
Nigel Brooks

More "self-serving" conclusions from the boys. What Luzzi
(DeGennaro)

not telling you is that he knows we are a group. And that we
have
meetings. And we all vote around the same time, and post around
the

time.
Is there a rule against that? Of course not. So what is this
post all
about? It is about hiding the truth, and more lies from those
that gain

lying.

I have provided so much math to this group you should have it
coming out

your ears. But as long as you *ignore* it, I guess you can lie
and claim
you have never seen it.

Woops! I said that *I* have never used an alias. Many people use

on this newsgroup - most do in fact. I never have. I always
signed my
name with a version of Doug Grant. You and Abdul and friends
claimed that
Floyd Young (and about 50 or 60 other names) were MY aliases.
You were
trying to represent to the newbies that I was only one crazy
person that
was questioning all those fantastic system claims. You did not
want to
admit that dozens of former professional players were agreeing
with me.

now you have changed your story once again. I suggest you get
your

straight before you post anymore self serving lies.
Doug Grant (Tm)
No Systems To Sell

"Please die or be killed soon" is what I received by posting a
specific and detailed report on cyberstalking from the Attorney
General's offfice. Moreover, this con man forged a Federal

harassment or ridicule, and several other features that are

: have received kiddy porn and death threats from these con men

Apparently Rusty has decided to forge my name some more. Does he
really think he will get away with trying to con the readers of
this
newsgroup with outright forgeries? Would he need to resort to
criminal activity if his preposterous claims that card counting
can
win were true?

in article

DGVREIMAN at

Doug Says: HAHAHAHA. Please Jimmy stop the self-serving and
obvious distortions of what I said. I said "The Lieutenants

Captains are usually only in the Military for two or less

Yes. That's what you said. That's what I quoted. And that is

So how could someone who actually served in the Army _and_ the

such a mistake? Very puzzling.

obvious distortions of what I said. I said "The Lieutenants

Captains are

usually only in the Military for two or less years to make
their ranks" not that

they STAY in the military for only two years or less like you

clearly distorting. See what happens when I make you repost

I say in context Jimmy? Your distorted ***** becomes

to us all. . When I was in the Army a Captain made Captain in
TWO YEARS OR LESS! So the Liutenants and Captains only had a
"two years or less of service" when they took command. A 2nd
Liutenant is given command of a platoon right out of OCS or

Point, and I assure you that they are broken in by the Senior
NCO's in the platoon before they take full command. That is

way it was in Vietnam, and the fact you are not aware of that
common process is just more evidence that you know absolutely
nothing of what you are talking about.

The tough, grizzled top sergeant giving a well deserved

chewing-out to a

callow 2nd lieutenant is the stuff of movies, but in real

was, and is,

insubordination, and would result in disciplinary action

against the first

sergeant, no matter how to senior. Of course a senior NCO

not be so

foolish as to give orders to an officer, no matter how

Doug Says: Jimmy you are absolutely nuts. 2nd Lieutenants are
normally smart enough to know they are going to take direction
from the Senior NCO's in the platoon even before their own men
will accept them as in command. This is standard information
provided in OCS, and most 2nd Lieutenants *want* their senior
NCOs to show them the ropes before they start giving orders

will get everyone killed. Do you really believe that in a
combat situation, a 2nd Lt., directly out of OCS, with perhaps
less than one year in service is going to take total control of

combat platoon of men away from senior NCO that have years of
combat experience? If you do, then you much dumber than you
sound, if that is possible. The worst thing a 2nd Lt., could

is give some stupid order and have it openly countermanded by a
senior NCO to save the lives of the platoon. So the

wisely take a few weeks and allow the NCO's to show them the
ropes before taking command. There are exceptions, such as a

Lt., that was commissioned from the NCO ranks, but for the most
part a 2nd Lt., is broken in by the senior NCO's in the

Jimmy, you are an idiot when it comes to this topic. You were

member of the SDS terrorist organization, and perhaps that is

way it worked in your terrorist organization, but in the Army
during the Vietnam war, it worked just the way I said it did.
You have been caught distorting and lying to the group yet

Jimmy? HAHAHAHAHAHA. When will you ever learn?

The business about field grade officers not being "required"

go "ever"

into combat is in principle also nonsense. If the colonel of

the regiment

orders Major Smith to accompany his battalion into combat,

Major Smith is

"required" to do go. Never happened? Well, about 9 percent of

officer deaths

in the Army in Vietnam were field grade officers. Some of

were acting

under orders, and, we have to presume, not all of them were

accidentally and

fatally impaled on punji stakes while out for a stroll in the

evening.

Doug Says: Jimmy, you idiot, where are you getting your

I was a NCO in Vietnam and I have never seen a Major or above
holding a rifle and leading
ground troops in combat in Vietnam. They might be flying

in a Helicopter, or in the rear in a command center, but down

the ground it is Captains and below that are actually leading

troops into a firefight...and usually never even a Captain.

troops first arrived in Vietnam there were cases of field

leading ground operations, but as a rule, they NEVER lead

in combat. They might come in during a battle to review or
asertain the effects of the operation, or after a battle, but
leading a fight on the ground with a rifle? No way, very
unusual. They are not that stupid Jimmy, they know they are

first target of the enemy.

Let me remind you Jimmy that you worked for some Texas
University. You were in the SDS terrorist organization that
murdering Americans and hated Vietnam vets, and you were
obviously never in the US Miltiary during combat operations in
Vietnam. You do not know anything about combat service, and

certainly were not in Vietnam nor in combat. Your information

goofy, stupid and not even close to being the truth. You are
doing nothing more than lying and make ridicilous statments

I, who has years of military service and 2&1/2 tours of duty in
Vietnam, know is utter *****.

Happy now, Doug?

Doug Says: Yep, very happy Jimmy. You have managed to make a
complete and utter fool out of yourself again, along with being
caught in a clear attempt to distort what I said. Yep, I must
say I am very very happy Jimmy.

Doug Grant (Tm)

Best regards,

--Jim McCulloch

Subject: Re: INTERNET GAMBLING DOOMED!
From: "DGGRANT"
Strange the courts see sixty different people The lawyers for
the

see them? Their names are all listed on the face of the
official court
documents, including our lawsuit,

The courts do not see any people, they see names on a piece of
paper.

"DGRANT" <

Jacobs you imbecile! We are not attempting to destroy
anything!

contrary, if you read our lawsuit, we are attempting to
preserve

play while allowing the casinos the opportunity to continue
to profit.

have absolutely no idea what we have recommended, nor for
that matter,

clue as to how to play winning Blackjack. I find it amazing
that

years of training winning teams to play high stake Blackjack,
and

team's winning more money longer than any other teams in
history, I

encounter arrogant individuals such as yourself that attempt
to

me about card counting and the game of Blackjack.
Your arrogance, lack of understanding of the issues, general

lack of success with the game does not make you an expert on
anything

with the game of Blackjack.

I see, and what does your arrogance, lack of understanding of
the

general stupidity, and lack of success make YOU an expert on?

Not to mention give you any right to dictate
anything to me about the game, or for that matter, any one of
my

members.

Dictate? Are we back to talking about the Shared Typist?

I just had to get my login ID changed, because my email address
got

and added to some commercial SPAM list, and I got an idear (it's
probably
not original, tho...):
Add this to the bottom of your .sig:
--------------------
Doogie SPAMbait:

"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <

Subject: Re: Doug Grant replies to Ray's "list"
Path:

lobby01.news.aol.com!newstf02­.news.aol.com!portc01.blue.aol­.com!newsxfer3

t.att.net!newsadm

From:

"DOUGLAS REIMAN" <

For those new to the group:

Doug & Sock Puppets snipped.
Bruce Van Epps

"Jim McCulloch" <mccull...@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:Csugd.12190$lM1.5106@fe2.texas.rr.com...

David Lentz wrote:

There are question for John Kerry:
http://www.swiftvetsandpows.com/

All the Swift Boat accusations have all been answered and
demolished,
but the peculiar virus-like function of such accusations in the
minds of
fundamentalist Republicans is curious, and I would like to take
a few
moments of your time to comment on it.

Name one bit of evidence that John Kerry spent Christmas eve,
or Christmas
of 1968 in Cambodia. None exists. Yet Kerry claimed for years
to spent
Christmas of 1968 in Cambodia. The Kerry campaign for months
have
insisted that Kerry has released all of his military records.
Yet this
week, Kerry told Tom Brokaw that has not released his military
records.
Brokaw had asserted comparison of military entrance exams had
shown George
W. Bush to have been smarter than Kerry. To which, Kerry
counter that his
entance scores had not been released because Kerry had not
released his
military records.