Fact Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I have to wonder if all of these slurs on Rees is the result that various local newspapers and others have spoke very well of Rees, has published his works but has not done the same for Brooks. Is this what it is all about? The Washington Times, The In Towner and others have spoken well of Rees but never of Brooks. The notable DC Watch is always publishing good things Rees is writing and others are taking note of it in a positive way. Again, is all of these slurs against Rees really jealousy against him because of the foregoing and the fact that he has done a good job of slamming hard his district and Brooks has not? Again, if you have real proof somebody is a dirt bag then let us see it but no more postings that holes can be punched through it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bfrankdc Posted February 3, 2006 Report Share Posted February 3, 2006 I said it before and I'll say it again. You are the only one who ever brings up Brooks. You constantly refer to him as your rival, etc. No one on this or any other message board has spoken about any of the candidates (until the post yesterday from the Mary Cheh supporter). Of course, now that there is a public record of lies and distoritions on the part of one of the candidates (Rees), the truth to the reporting public and thus the general public will be revealed. However, since you are running a stealth campaign for under $500 which is going to be predicated on SPAMMING the residents of Ward 3, and plan on shunning the public appearances at debates and forums, I guess it won't matter. B. Frank I have to wonder if all of these slurs on Rees is the result that various local newspapers and others have spoke very well of Rees, has published his works but has not done the same for Brooks. Is this what it is all about? The Washington Times, The In Towner and others have spoken well of Rees but never of Brooks. The notable DC Watch is always publishing good things Rees is writing and others are taking note of it in a positive way. Again, is all of these slurs against Rees really jealousy against him because of the foregoing and the fact that he has done a good job of slamming hard his district and Brooks has not? Again, if you have real proof somebody is a dirt bag then let us see it but no more postings that holes can be punched through it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthseeker Posted February 4, 2006 Report Share Posted February 4, 2006 (edited) I have to wonder if all of these slurs on Rees is the result that various local newspapers and others have spoke very well of Rees, has published his works but has not done the same for Brooks. Is this what it is all about? The Washington Times, The In Towner and others have spoken well of Rees but never of Brooks. The notable DC Watch is always publishing good things Rees is writing and others are taking note of it in a positive way..... I for one would like to see actual links to any reporter or columnist or op-ed person in "The Media" who's spoken "very well" of Rees, particularly since word of the Alias scandal got out. Yes, I will grant that one guy in the InTowner did, before a certain person's reputation became well-known, but a close reading will show that the author of the column specifically stated that he wasn't supporting Rees as a candidate, but was (to be completely honest) in favor of the ideas contained in a paragraph he cited about lowering taxes. Of course this post would mean absolutely nothing without a link to a primary source, so here it is. http://www.intowner.com/fr/editorial/January2005.htm Other than that --- bupkes. In fairness, aside from a few pro-brooks mentions (which I won't repeat lest I be accused of actually BEING Brooks) t here's been very little written about ANY ward candidate. Presumably because the primary (not even the election itself) is an entire NINE months away. I expect the first negative article, and there will be one, will be dismissed as being part of some conspiracy or other. Edited February 4, 2006 by truthseeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldengirl Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Seriously Rees, you just look like a pathetic loser now. You should tell your 'army' of children to quit posting things because well, you are looking almost as pathetic as a guy who solicits sex off the internet, oh wait, you do that too. Jonathan Rees' attempt to solicit sex take 1: http://forums.washingtondc.craigslist.org/?ID=25967295 Jonathan Rees' attempt to solicit sex take 2: Received: by 10.11.1.23 with SMTP id 23mr161921cwa; Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:26:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from 4.249.111.100 by f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:26:49 +0000 (UTC) From: jrrees@peoplepc.com To: "Discrete affairs in Washington DC area" <Discrete-affairs-in-Washington-DC-area@googlegroups.com> Subject: ITALIAN MAN 40 ISO WM FOR KINKY SEX Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 03:26:49 -0000 Message-ID: <1132975609.493196.246950@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com> User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; PeoplePal 3.0; InfoPath.1; PeoplePal 6.1),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) MIME-Version: 1.0Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" If you a kinky lady and would like to meet a hot Italian guy then let's chat. I think the public record does support that more publications have reported or published things Rees has wrotten than his rival Brooks but what do you expect when Rees is a seasoned person and Brooks is just a kid out of college? This is no surprise. Anybody who looks at both their website sites can see that Rees is more specific and Brooks is more superficial with nothing specific. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 I believe there have been some negative things written about both Rees and Brooks. About Rees has been along the lines of his economic theories and about Brooks his lack of knowledge, experience and being arrogant. I know many in the media and they are thinking that all of you attacking Rees are in truth agents for Brooks and that is why they are not interested in any of this because you guys go at it morning, noon and night day after day which some think only people working for a candidate would do not normal day to day people. I think the fact all of you have gone overboard as killed the media interest. I for one would like to see actual links to any reporter or columnist or op-ed person in \\\"The Media\\\" who\\\'s spoken \\\"very well\\\" of Rees, particularly since word of the Alias scandal got out. Yes, I will grant that one guy in the InTowner did, before a certain person\\\'s reputation became well-known, but a close reading will show that the author of the column specifically stated that he wasn\\\'t supporting Rees as a candidate, but was (to be completely honest) in favor of the ideas contained in a paragraph he cited about lowering taxes. Of course this post would mean absolutely nothing without a link to a primary source, so here it is. http://www.intowner.com/fr/editorial/January2005.htm Other than that --- bupkes. In fairness, aside from a few pro-brooks mentions (which I won\\\'t repeat lest I be accused of actually BEING Brooks) t here\\\'s been very little written about ANY ward candidate. Presumably because the primary (not even the election itself) is an entire NINE months away. I expect the first negative article, and there will be one, will be dismissed as being part of some conspiracy or other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldengirl Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Who cares about the media interest, I personally am hoping to kill Jonathan Rees' interest. I believe there have been some negative things written about both Rees and Brooks. About Rees has been along the lines of his economic theories and about Brooks his lack of knowledge, experience and being arrogant. I know many in the media and they are thinking that all of you attacking Rees are in truth agents for Brooks and that is why they are not interested in any of this because you guys go at it morning, noon and night day after day which some think only people working for a candidate would do not normal day to day people. I think the fact all of you have gone overboard as killed the media interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 It is a free country. Go for it but do not forget to put on your KKK robe. Who cares about the media interest, I personally am hoping to kill Jonathan Rees\' interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goldengirl Posted February 5, 2006 Report Share Posted February 5, 2006 Wow, you're really grasping for straws here. I'm done wasting time engaging your false claims and ignorance. It is a free country. Go for it but do not forget to put on your KKK robe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truthseeker Posted February 6, 2006 Report Share Posted February 6, 2006 (edited) I believe there have been some negative things written about both Rees and Brooks. About Rees has been along the lines of his economic theories and about Brooks his lack of knowledge, experience and being arrogant. I know many in the media and they are thinking that all of you attacking Rees are in truth agents for Brooks and that is why they are not interested in any of this because you guys go at it morning, noon and night day after day which some think only people working for a candidate would do not normal day to day people. I think the fact all of you have gone overboard as killed the media interest. Saying "I believe there have been some negative things written" in no way answers my call for you to post specific links. Everyone here, with the greatest of ease, provides supporting documentation for counter-claims to your posts. You never do. It's also not enough to say "people in the media are saying". This sounds quite like a small child, caught breaking a window, saying "I heard some guy say HE did it." It's just that easy to do and has exactly the same effect on thinking adults: which is to say none at all. These vague "I hear" "People are saying" "Someone told me" statements are especially ineffective when one considers the source - someone whose record of fabrication is posted permanently to the top of this forum for all to see. You'll find out soon enough what "the media" actually think. Bet on it. Edited February 6, 2006 by truthseeker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godfather Posted February 13, 2006 Report Share Posted February 13, 2006 No...we want to do what you do. We want to create phony matters and come back later and accuse you of something big and link it to the phony ad we created for you just like all of you are doing. You are dumber than I thought. Saying "I believe there have been some negative things written" in no way answers my call for you to post specific links. Everyone here, with the greatest of ease, provides supporting documentation for counter-claims to your posts. You never do. It's also not enough to say "people in the media are saying". This sounds quite like a small child, caught breaking a window, saying "I heard some guy say HE did it." It's just that easy to do and has exactly the same effect on thinking adults: which is to say none at all. These vague "I hear" "People are saying" "Someone told me" statements are especially ineffective when one considers the source - someone whose record of fabrication is posted permanently to the top of this forum for all to see. You'll find out soon enough what "the media" actually think. Bet on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts