truthseeker

Only moderators can kick someone off. And I think "until proven otherwise" happened QUITE some time ago, thanks. As for the rest of it, you seem to be unable to grasp the central points of what I've said. Or, alternatively, you're willfully ignoring the logic therein, for reasons that remain mysterious to me. Either way, it's apparently not possible to engage in a reasoned exchange with you, so I'm not going to continue.

Yes, obviously. And they should be equipped to know exactly WHO their candidates are, and what they're capable of, before doing so. I'm unaware that discussion of politicians' behavior is customarily limited only to people who vote in their political subdivision. If a media outlet does a story on this or any other contest, I suppose you'd assert that it was inappropriate unless the author were a voter in that district. This argument is utterly specious. Unethical behavior must be exposed, regardless of the geographic location. Plus, it's a public discussion board, man. People can post whatever they want. I'd encourage you to be a little more upset by someone who uses it to post homophobic speech and libel private citizens (to cite just two examples) instead. THAT would be more appopriate avenue for your discomfort, it seems to me.

To put it plainly, you don't know what you're talking about here. I did not seek out Rees. He was forced on me, and thousands of others, as regular users of Craigslist nationally . Late last summer he began spamming CL. I quickly noticed that the posts all bore a certain similarity - and many were offensive in the extreme. He's notorious on Craigslist for breaking the no-spam and no-cross-forum-posting rule. So, I googled him. And I was horrified at what I found. Obvious lies. Hate speech. Libel. Stuff no decent person, and certainly no candidate for public office, should EVER stoop to writing. Eventually this led me here, the site of some of his most despicable work. The other rees-watchers here are not my "friends". (You like the assumptions, don't you?) I don't know who the others are (whether you believe that or not is immaterial to me, given your apparent lack of interest in -genuine- inquiry.) I don't know their real names, their political affiliations or anything about them, just their screen names. But I sure appreciate their willingness to do the tough and thankless job of sorting through this creep's lies and countering them with facts. I'm not involved in politics at all, myself. I'm sure you'll choose to believe otherwise, but you'll be wrong. Believe whatever you want, sir, but if you think for a moment that anyone here is part of some organized effort, you're too-easily duped the minor-league propagandizing of the "candidate."

I see DCist closed down the thread for the night. Busy day for you, eh?

Though this ham-fisted generalization may help you shoehorn all this more comfortably into your worldview, it's just plain inaccurate. Me, I'm neither a Republican nor a Democrat. I realize this may rock your dichotomy, but there you have it. What I am is opposed to people who lie, and intentionally hurt innocent people. PS: The "Isle of Wight" is so named because it is surrounded by water. But there is an "aisle" separating party members in a legislative chamber.

So peaceful :-) *sighs contentedly*

Logic, facts and ethics are no match for mania, obsession and delusional ideation. Especially in the absence of any moral capacity. In the short term, anyway. And the attention is like crack to him, as evidenced by the weekend ReesAliasaPalooza here. It was like he deployed a carpet bomb full of disjointed nonsense. Keep in mind that the last word is seldom the true word.

I LOVE that this guy, when presented with absolutely undeniable proof (in the form of the IP address concordance posted under the "Multiple Alias Disorder" posts) merely says "It's a lie." If you provided him with a video of himself writing those posts, he'd just repeat "It's a lie, I tell ya! A lie!' As if some blog post about pies could in any way change the incontrovertible nature of IP addresses. Love, Not Sam Brooks, Not BFrankDC, not Golden Girl

Let's see copies of what you printed out then. I have a bet going with myself as to how you'll respond. Love, Not Sam Brooks, Not BFrankDC

Wow. Pies. That's -quite- the smoking gun you've found there. //sarcasm.

I will enjoy speculating about the fantastic, unexplored universes in which that blog post might constitute "an admission to mudslinging by Brooks." Incredible galaxies where people don't understand what a 'quote' is or the nature of blog posts and where the capslock is deployed with abandon. Intriguing alien worlds where the earthly laws of logic and grammar are suspended. It's exciting to think about.

It's SO sad that you think this is some kind of "proof." Dear God, is it sad. In a Norman Bates kinda way.

That's "Miss F--got" to you.

Wow. You really are living in some kind of alternate reality. That blog post has no quote from Brooks, no admission, no relevance. It's genuinely sad that you read it that way. Or that you think anyone else could.

Wrong again, proxy boy. I'm anonymous only because I'm totally afraid of your low cunning and stop-at-nothing amorality. You've mounted frankly frighteningly sleazy attacks on those who DO have the guts to use their name (Melvin Belcher, Bill Adler, John Capozzi, DCist Martin etc etc). Plus, I'M NOT THE ONE RUNNING FOR OFFICE. It doesn't MATTER what my name is. And even if we DID meet, you'd only manufacture some ridiculous lie about how I'm a friend of Brooks or Martin or god-knows-what. Call that chicken, if you will, as your opinion hardly matters to me. I, on the other hand, call it self-defense. I'm so bored with this. I can't WAIT until the upcoming article about you is released.

Oh, honestly. That WaPo blog post demonstrates nothing of the sort. Obviously. Of course, the IP addresses linking Stewart, Rees, Etc etc actually DO demonstrate who's been posting under aliases and what they've been posting. Check out "Rees Multiple Aliast Disorder" posts in the archives of this board. And that, " Mr. Stewart", is what genuine proof looks like. try to hold yourself to even some basic standard of evidence. This is no more than a junior high school debate team achieves on a daily basis...see if you can match that relatively low ethical and intellectual standard.

Wow. That really takes a willful misreading of a blog post to reach that conclusion. Hardly a smoking gun, dude. Yawn.

Wow, you're REALLY wound up tonight. Lithium is your friend, I promise.

This post is so rife with illogic and sloppy critical thinking that its almost amusing. Almost. You've proven nothing. The only thing that's been proven is that you've been posting using aliases to slam your opponents and your critics. Everyone reading this should go have a look at the IP concordance posted under "Rees' Multiple Alias Disorder". Meanwhile, I repeat. There's no quote from brooks in the blog posting. I realize you think, yet again, that you've found some smoking gun, but there isn't one. You'll have to find something else to congratulate yourself about. I know! How about running a nice clean campaign? oh, right. You've refused to agree to that. never mind.

Look everyone! He's switched to a proxy address now! Also: Don't speak for the Post. When someone from the paper posts here from a verifiable Washington Post address, THEN we'll believe it. Until then, it's just more confabulation. Perhaps they even did speak with -a- Ray Stewart at CVS once. Bet you're not him, though. Finally, if anyone ever DID post such a hateful anti-semitic remark on this board, I doubt Brooks had anything to do with it, or anyone working on his behalf. I'd like to see you prove it. On the other hand, when this homophobic garbage gets traced back to the Rees campaign, game over. Finally.

Yes, it has. It's been posted in the "Rees Multiple Alias Disorder" posts. Sorry dude. We know you're Rees, and now we can only assume what we've suspected, that's he's a gay-baiting bigot -- among other things. Nice work, there "Mr. Stewart." Oh, don't worry. The folks at the Post do indeed know who you are. But I'm saying too much already.....

Since Stewart's IP address was previously linked to other Rees Aliases, including one used by Rees himself, I can only conclude the obvious. And you better believe I've taken a screenshot of this. Good luck with that election, man.

Prove I'm Sam Brooks. You can't. Because I'm not. No one is using multiple aliases here but you, dude. Your critics here are all distinct people with distinct IP addresses and identities. The IP concordance (See "Multiple Alias Disorder" posts in the archives here) proves this and proves that Rees's aliases are all linked. Every time you repeat the same falsehood, someone here will respond with facts. AND supporting evidence. That's a standard you just can't meet. And disjointed, repetitive innuendo is no substitute.

Hi Jonathan!

Just as I expected. He can never provide screenshots or outside verification (aside from newly-minted aliases that pop up conveniently to say "I heard that, too!") His constant refrain of "everyone knows Brooks began this" rings completely hollow, and more so with each repetition. And saying something is in "the public record" means nothing unless it's truly public. On the rare occasion when someone here has accused you of something specific, we've provided screenshots, IP addresses and links. Even when you've deleted a post, we've posted the screenshots. Interesting that you never do, or the links you provide once in a blue moon turn out to say something entirely different than what you've advertised.