Re: Sam Brooks allegedly posting here

[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.

Edited February 26, 2006 by truthseeker

[grim]

Truthseeker...I totally disagree with you as there is no guage whether or not an advertisement is or is not poorly executed. You views as well as mine are purely subjective and nobody will know if it was or was not a smart or dumb move until all votes have been counted.

 

 

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.