truthseeker

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I'm not Brooks. As far as I know, the other Reeswatchers here aren't either (particularly the ones who use theire actual names.) It's purely incorrect to state otherwise. I'll let readers decide which of us is more likely to be fabricating these kind of stories. And finally, who, exactly, is the only person ever to bring up Brooks' name here? No one has actually said anything positive about him here, either. We've merely countered your allegations against him and a host of other people. Because it's unfair. Also, there's a difference between littering neighborhoods with poorly-executed flyers/libeling people under juvenile psuedonyms and "campaigning." Whatever. I'm reminded of the conventional wisdom about arguing with a madman.

It matters immensely when it was written. Since your on-line behavior came to light, no media outlet has given you the time of day as a candidate. You won't have to wait too much longer until you get the media attention you apparently crave, though. But I'll say no more about that. You really do think I'm a man, don't you? Or is that "fantasize?"

LONG before journalists, voters and the political community became aware of a certain person's online behavior. You'll note that I'm not closing this thread. Discussion doesn't frighten ME. This is the only message board I've ever seen that allows non-moderators to close a thread. Odd.

You're literally obsessed with homosexuality. Classic sign of latency, that. Although since I'm not male, you're even more off the mark than usual. Go ahead. Say something misogynistic. You know you have to.

Nice work B! I'm not the least bit surprised, of course, but it's good to actually check this nonsense out every once in a while. Thanks for doing it.

Thanks JustPassingThrough! Primary source material with a working link is always appreciated, as opposed to vague recollections and WHOLLY inaccurate characterizations. You rock. Of course its fascinating how completely removed Jimbo's comments are from our capslock-challenged poster's summary of it. More notable, however, is the absence of the word "twink" . "Deep Throat" (ahem) seems intriguingly familiar with the lingo. Not to mention with any of the literary devices, like self-parody, Jimbo employs...I think the OP really doesn't understand Jimbo's post at all. Read through some of the posts here, if you dare, and you'll find that humor, other than the most grotesque, juvenile sort, just goes right over his head. I should also like to point out that there are no credible statistics available anywhere that support that completely ridiculous claim about how 90% of the gay community voted last time. Call the BOEE and ask them if the keep statistics on voting based on orientation. I have. They don't. Nor does any media outlet. It's another fabrication out of whole cloth. As always, I challenge the OP to provide any supporting link or documentation. And don't tell me to "do the research myself." I already have.

I personally find it fascinating that the self-described anti-gay bigot displays an amazing facility for in-group slang, if you catch my meaning. It's in the first post in this thread, and several others. A familiarity with the nuanced languaged of the group that's unusual for this poster, who seems to have a limited capacity for both language and nuance, or any understanding of the mores of groups with whom he's unfamiliar. This is because "homophobia" despite our pal's assertion to the contrary, doesn't indicate that someone is "against the gay community." It indicates, in psychological terms, that someone is so tormented by one's own latent homoerotic desires that he turns on openly homosexual people, on the very idea of homosexuality, in a vain attempt to eradicate them from oneself. It's fascinating to watch. The poster has long seemed to me to have a big, throbbing, obsessive, unrequited crush on a certain straight council candidate. Were I a psychologist, I'd go so far as to say that's the motivation behind all this. But of course I am not.

Good comeback! Really, this is on par with the Lincoln-Douglas debate. You've set the rhetorical bar -that- high. Congratulations, sir. I am humbled by your superior skill.

I'm paying particular attention to that last line. Just as I suspected. Though in my head, I'm replacing "fair play" with "self-interest".

I'm still waiting for him to answer this one. Interesting how he changed the subject. Doesn't matter. I've got the screenshots if you want 'em.

Interesting. In a tiresome and predictable way. *sigh*

Oh my god. People are going to have an absolute FIELD day with that! The 'Administrator" part is priceless!!!

I'd like to see it too! I'll bet you're right though...he's frightened of the legal ramifications. Though he does seem to trample all over libel and related laws with impunity, and regularity, so who can say?

Not brooks, dude. And no, they're all laughing at Alias Boy. Quite definitely. And you're as wrong about board usage stats as you are on every other subject you post on. 20 at best! Good one! Invincible ignorance is a laugh riot

Wow, the classic "I'm rubber you're glue" gambit favored by Socrates and Plato, among other master rhetoricians. very well-played, sir. very well-played.

Hardly. I've been on-line for a total of 20 minutes today. Wait, why am I bothering to talk to you at all? You're crazy and mean and not very bright. SUCH a waste of time. G'night all!

No. I mean politicians, bloggers, reporters and the thousands of readers of the websites you keep commandeering with this crap. It's sad that you don't realize this.

Nope. I'm doing quite well tonight. You seem preternaturally agitated as usual though.

So laughably, demonstrably, unrepentantly, embarassingly, invincibly incorrect. And offensive.

You're ridiculous. Absolutely, transparently, ridiculous. The entire blogosphere now thinks so. SO-O-O sad. I can't even be bothered anymore. Except to post a screenshot of the deleted "ID card" you posted earlier:

Well NOW's a fine time to finally make your presence known here. And THIS is what get's you to pay attention?? Not the hate speech and homophobic slurs? Not the vulgarity? Not the libel? Not the aliases? ALL of which violate the board's terms of use. Man. Correct. You do not appear to have one. Or, and I'm being generous here, that of a 2nd grader. Idjit.

Great! Someone please call CVS, find out when "Ramon" works and send one of your friends (especially out-of-town ones for obvious security reasons) to meet him and ask him some questions only "Ramon" would know the answers to. And that would be impossible for Rees to prepare him for. Report back soon!

Whackjob.

No, that would be "Ray" or "Raymond". Your story just gets weaker and weaker. Everyone in town is talking about it....and believe me, they know what's REALLY going on. You're really too dim to be concerned about this, aren't you?