truthseeker

Hmmm. Interesting. And what about the ISP address itself? Because this second post has that same number, and according to nic.com and arin.net, it's a Cox account. Don't know where BFrank got the cable part, but anyway....that's the extent of the info I can see. In any event, you're not running for office, nor are you apparently posting horrid things under multiple psuedonyms, so your IP addy is totally immaterial ;-)

oops! sorry, didn't see your handle.

Since he doesn't appear to be logged on at the moment, allow me: 70.179.82.15

The IP this was posted from was previously used by NikkiDix. Wonder how I know? I CAN SEE IP ADDRESSES HERE. My account allows it. Yours does not. Try to understand this. Also: EVERYONE KNOWS HOW TO SEE THE IPS on yahoogroups. Open the post, click on a particular tab and THERE IT IS! This isn't a secret, it's common knowledge. To everyone but you, apparently. You're just digging yourself in deeper here, dude. Love Always, Not SamBrooks, NotBFrankDC, Not Factchecker2

Um, "Tammy?" Before you continue to post this kind of thing, allow me to do you a favor by revealing that it's absolutely un-true that no one can "prove" what IP addresses you post from. Without going into detail, I can tell you that your various IPs and the names that have posted from them have been visible for quite some time now to several people affiliated with this board. I promise you that the information posted above by BFrankDC is completely accurate. Additionally, I can also confirm that BFrankDC has consistently used the same IP address (though since he's not running for office, it's not really the issue now, is it? ) Do yourself a favor and believe it. And you don't have to take my word for it. Ask Luke Wilbur or any other moderator. Better yet, don't. Because then you'll stop publicly embarassing yourself. Either way, it's all on record in the site archives so far. (That's an FYI to you reporters out there.)

I'm definitely not. Can't speak for anyone else. But I don't even live in DC, nor am I involved with any political, lobbying or other group that has even the loosest connection to any candidate. Promise. Here's the lowdown on the admittedly confusing cast of characters. Most of the posts here have to do with candidate Jonathan Rees. He apparently posts stuff here under a variety of aliases (NikkieDix, Pam, JRR, Tammy, MissGlover Park, Angela Brannon, Officer Magana, etc etc). There are about a half dozen other regular posters here (DCist Martin, Factchecker2, BFrankDC and a couple of other folks ) . Each of us uses a single, non-changing handle, and (despite a certain candidate's claims) we are all separate people in real life as well as on-line.) These posters stop by here (the only board on which Rees seems to be allowed to post locally anymore) to counter the outrageous claims of what are now known as The Aliases ..check the post entitled "Rees's Multiple Alias Disorder for a list of their corresponding IP addresses.) So far as I know, the non-aliases poster aren't pro-anyone, just people who were fed up with the horrible and aggressive on-line behavior. As for the candidates themselves, I'll bet they're aware of the situation. But I don't expect any of them would lower themselves to participate in such juvenile goings-on.

Easy. Links to any post that includes the accusations Rees claims have been lodged against him. Any post, (dated before he claims to have been so accused) in which anyone seriously claimed he had been involved in a "Brink's job", murdered his wife, spied for Bush, broken into the Bureau of Elections, or any of the other absurd claims he made in his recent posts.

I'd also like to find out why OfficerNikkiTammyGloverDiceMan has decided you're a "smearmeister." I've yet to hear you make any smears at all, in fact. Though the post we've responded to, like so many posts before it, is clearly one. Oh, the irony. Or not, considering.

Utterly ridiculous. The burden of proof always falls on the accuser. Not just in legal proceedings but in ordinary discourse. Especially given said accuser's own history. Wow, college students as Marxists? Someone's seen the McCarthy movie recently. And DCistMartin is right, the "riot" (which appears to have been an anti-war rally) mentions nothing about race. It's disgusting and irresponsible to inject that. The Nazi allegation is simply grotesque. But once again, you've failed to back up your words. Putting the burden on others to contact the cops in Pennsylvania is nothing more than an admission that you haven't obtained any proof yourself. SAYING the record exists and anyone can obtain fails to meet even the most rudimentary standards of public debate. Like so many similar efforts, it's just not flying. Get a book on rhetoric. And definitely get one on ethics. M.N.P. NSB, NBF

(Oops, pardon the empty post above) I'll second Factcheckers comment. Despite the many responses, R---' inflammatory posts have generated over the past few months, I have yet to see anyone accuse him of anything listed in that post. Not once. People have certainly asked direct questions about his on-line behavior; many have inquired about inconsistencies in his own claims; others have wondered about items on his resume; posters have certainly characterized him, based on his posting history, with words like "unstable" "dangerous" "juvenile" etc. But I have yet to see any evidence of people lodging any of the unethical and absurd sorts of accusations he's cited. This latest sob story is a transparent attempt to portray himself as a victim, rather than a perpetrator of libel, and to make his critics appear to be the ones who are unreliable and of low character. Murder? Brinks robbery? Pedophilia? Ridiculous.. Here's an example of what really happens vs his version of it: When he posts that a critic of his must not really live in Ward 3 because he found no such name in the records Bureau of Elections, Verizon, Wasco and Pepco, someone responds with appropriate alarm about him looking into people's utility accounts. No one, however, accused him of working for the Bush Administration as a spy, nor did they accuse him of breaking into the BOEE and stealing records. Not ever. Perhaps a facetious remark was offered, but nothing that rises to the level of allegation. It is, however, simple enough to find him (sorry, people-who-are-not-him) having accused people of: paying the homeless for adult activity; being the former lover of his opponent; being a racist ex-con; stalking the candidate and his family IRL; pulling his flyers off telephone poles; having been fired from a law office for having sexual relations with a client; etc. These posts are still viewable here, in the archives on DCist, on DCDL, on several yahoogroups, etc. Now that we've pointed this out, I'm willing to bet that posts with bizarre accusations such as the above will start appearing under new aliases. Fortunately (particularly for journalists and lawyers) post-dating doesn't work on the internet. None of OfficerNikkiTammyGloverDiceMan's wild tales ever include supporting documents, just instructions (when pressed) to ask so-and-so about it, or "come to my office and I'll tell you" or "people are saying". And when he does post a link, an even slightly attentive reading always proves that it never actually says anything close to what he alleges (the despicable post about Dcist Martin is only the latest example of this.) Even his efforts at salacious rumor-mongering are pitiful. And finally. Must. Stop. Posting. Love, Not Sam Brooks, Not BFrank etc etc

"nikkidix", could you PLEASEat least TRY to make sense? That post was rife with illogic, obfuscation and irrelevance. You've completely sidestepped the fundamental questions here, and completely failed to address anything in the post immediately previous to yours. Big surprise.

Well put, Martin. Even a candidate for public office would encounter virtually no public reaction to a "revelation" so trivial. Though I expect voters would/will be a little harsher on an -actual- candidate found to have, oh, for example, impersonated a polic officer on-line, used comments sections to libel private citizens, etc. This just gets sadder and sadder.

^^^"Bwak" would have been a lot more concise.

Wow, that's some "proof" there.

Interestingly, when the original profile was put up last night, his age, location and marital status were all significantly different then they are in the current profile. (44, married, DC). Also, the quote provided was, like the post's subject line, "Just Looking For Clues At the Scene of the Crime." I can't WAIT to hear MPD's reaction to all of this. :-)

1. I love how he used the word "Policeman" in the handle. Anyone who knows cops would know better. 2. The tell tale "such construction" appears in yet another new character's posts. YOU know what I mean. 3. Know a smart local reporter? Have any friends at MPD (particularly in the real Magana's department?) FORWARD that post. 3. Must. Not. Post. Must. Not. Post. Must. Not....

That's one of the tautological statements for which you've become infamous. How can I make this simple for you: Bfranks starts post. Truthseeker (and you in the guise of Dice Clay) add comments. Bfranks arranges through the moderators, to pin the topic. It then got closed for comment. I've tried to comment again, but am, like you, locked out. Again, you sad little man, repeating misinformation doesn't lend it credence. It has, in fact, quite the opposite effect. You're just plain wrong about this. Look, you clearly don't understand how this works and I'm not wasting another moment of my evening attempting to explain the obvious to someone incapable of grasping it. Go play on DCist for a while, Alias Boy. I'm bored with you.

Were I to stoop to addressing the alleged candidate personally, I would merely point out that the thread was begun and open for comment long before it was locked. Pathetic. Just pathetic.

Oh, but haven't you heard, B? R--s wrote elsewhere that he can say whatever he wants because, as an alleged candidate, he's got "immunity". (I'm sure you've seen that particular post in one of the more repugnant DCist comment threads.) Eh. He'll find out. Anyway, just wanted to pop back in to commend you on your efforts this week. Nice work, B. Appreciatively, Not You, Not Brooks

-bumping up-

You. Are. Rees.

Except I'm not using a proxy. Note the lack of slashes that appear in your and "MissGloverPark"s posts. Also, I'd be interested to see a link on the "story" that Sam Brooks allegedly wrote for the Post. Your ignorance is surpassed only by your hubris. You're just a colossal embarassment and I now resume my policy of ignoring your absurd ranting. Get your egocentric attention-seeking jones filled by someone else. I'm not continuing. Sincerely, Not Sam Brooks, Not BFrank, nor Factchecker2

Oh, baloney. I've just logged in, I encourage BFrank and Factchecker2 to do so immediately. Stay in this particular thread, and look at the bottom of the page. THEN you'll see how many different posters are here at once. The names of account-holders using the board ALWAYS appear in the "users reading this topic" bar at the bottom of each thread. Duh. Also: if 3 posters are logged in, but not on the same thread, just CLICK ON THEIR NAME to see their log-in status. The Unnameable One knows this. He's just desperate. Log on, gents and lets see. Although he will, of course, backtrack once we're all on, and come up with some other tissue-thin explanation. What an ass. If your using a proxy (which is always obvious because of the unique code it leaves in each post), however, it's possible to log in under two accounts. I can't do that, because I'm not using a proxy. Neither can factchecker2, who I see has just logged in. Duh.

Finally, a journalist!. I BEG of you, Tom. Get someone to dig into this guy's past, including his compulsive on-line activity (I'm sure a couple of folks here can provide plenty of screen shots and link to some of his more extreme on-line activity...including libel of private citizens, bizarre hate speech, etc.) not to mention his alleged resume. Look into his involvement with the court system (and possibly the mental health system) here and elsewhere. And remember, he's slippery as hell. He'll have a ready, though ultimately flimsy, excuse for every lie you catch him in. Most importantly, he'll try to tell you that the people who challenge him on-line (Here, on the only site he's still allowed) are all Sam Brooks or people who support him. It's simply not true. It's time the local news media looked into this. Of course, it's entirely possible here in the Reeseverse that you're not actually Tom Sherwood and R is up to something here. Ya never know.