#1 2008-11-27 20:11:13
I just got a great idea, and would you believe, I got it by reading the Rag! The Ragman announced in this week's rag that there is now a boycott against the businesses that are selling the Rag. I think that is a wonderful idea that we should all get involved in, and I have to say, thank you Ragman, you are a true sport by announcing that there is a boycott against you. In fact, had I not read about it in the Rag, I wouldn't have even known there was a boycott, and wouldn't have been able to share the idea with all these nice blogsters here. And Ragman, you even announced the idea in your paper so that everyone in town would think about doing it. I gotta say, it's a big man that is willing to promote ideas that go against him.
So get to it folks and let the boycott begin! And be sure to thank the Ragman for giving us all the idea to boycott the rag supporting businesses!
Thanks Ragman, you dumbass!!!
Offline
#2 2008-11-27 20:34:27
I can't get the rag on line. I wonder if the rag is only going to have hard copies.
Offline
#3 2008-11-27 21:01:56
Sam,
That's weird, maybe you have a manure filter on your computer or something. I just read it online because I wouldn't give the Ragman a nickel if my life depended on it.
Offline
#4 2008-11-27 21:39:25
Sam79 wrote:
I can't get the rag on line. I wonder if the rag is only going to have hard copies.
He hasn't updated last week's lead story. Go to Tears and Jeers first. We get the whole column. Also most of the Mystical Balls, too. Guaranteed to make you cry!
edit: Lest I forget who I am, "I’m Bill Whitehouse. I wrote this. That’s really all that needs to be said."
Last edited by billw (2008-11-27 21:41:19)
Offline
#5 2008-11-27 21:41:21
Who's supporting ALL ELEVEN liquor stores in town anyway?
Offline
#6 2008-11-27 22:24:20
Hamatron5000 wrote:
The Ragman announced in this week's rag that there is now a boycott against the businesses that are selling the Rag. I think that is a wonderful idea that we should all get involved in
Sounds a little heavy handed - or umm, hamfisted - to me, Ham.
Slager/Sauvageau will collapse of their own obese weight and our efforts aren't liable to hasten their departure by a day... unless we contact Slager's advertisers and pointedly remind them of the harm their ad dollars create.
Offline
#7 2008-11-27 22:40:32
Commonsense, you have a point, with liquor stores being the Ragman's primary distribution points (probably because you have to be drunk to believe half the stuff he writes), a boycott won't have that much effect, unless we can convince the Brockton Broad to boycott, then said liquor stores would instantly go kaput.
Billw - My main point was to point out the stupidity of the Ragman to announce a boycott against himself. But then again, the Ragman has always had a bad habit of promoting efforts against him. The Ragman's jeer explains that apparently people are out there writing letters expressing their unhappyness with the businesses' decision to support the Rag. If the letters are respectful, I don't see a problem with that.
And if you think about it, the Ragman's rantings usually follow the same pattern - he says "If you think this way, if you don't agree with the selectmen, then you should get the hell out of town because dissenters are not welcome here anymore."
If certain businesses are agreeing with that sentiment, then aren't we doing them a favor by not frequenting their establishments? If businesses agree with the Ragman that dissenters are not welcome, then certainly, our money shouldn't be welcome either, I would think.
Or is it ok for us to spend our money as long as we shut up and do what we are told?
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2008-11-27 22:45:27)
Offline
#8 2008-11-28 00:10:25
Hamatron5000 wrote:
Billw - My main point was to point out the stupidity of the Ragman to announce a boycott against himself.
Except that blaming victims for your own crimes often works.
Listen to what Slager is actually saying. "The big bad elite bullies are trying to run us out of bid'ness!"
In recent months, Slager's blamed the S-T, the Courier, Boston's Channel 7 and everyone else in christendom. This week, it's our turn. We're all out to crush the crusading 'independent', along with poor, poor Warehamers in the bargain.
A concise and factual appeal to Slager's remaining advertisers is much easier and will have more immedate consequences. Cheaper, too. First class postage, times what? Maybe a dozen businesses?
Offline
#9 2008-11-28 07:50:19
Pat,
Shameless political partisan losers always blame to others for their failures. If the Ragman was actually putting out a quality product, he wouldn't have to worry about a boycott or the "power elitists." The free market regulates good and bad ideas. If trying to pass off a shameless politically partisan pro-selectmen newsletter as a newspaper was a good idea, then the Ragman wouldn't have failed miserably at it twice now.
The Ragman, in his jeer, was clearly trying to intimidate the people who wrote those letters and make them afraid of exercising their own right to free speech. Many kudos to whoever wrote that letter, it took alot of courage and has inspired others to get involved.
Again, the Ragman always plays "the victim card." He always looks for sympathy, saying he's the victim of this, or that. Its what bullies do - they pick on people for years, if the picked on fight back, the bully screams like a little girl that he is the one picked on. The Ragman is a classic example of a loser playing every trick in the loser's playbook.
I'd say if people do complain to businesses, either in letter, on the phone, or in person, it should always be respectful, not-harrassing, not mean spirited.
Offline
#10 2008-11-28 08:25:48
Hamatron5000 wrote:
The Ragman, in his jeer, was clearly trying to intimidate the people who wrote those letters and make them afraid of exercising their own right to free speech.
No, my guess is Slager is fabricating out of whole cloth but doesn't matter, does it? He's playing one side against the other; the losers at the polls vs the virtuous selectswine. Don't let him define the fight. All I'm saying.
Offline
#11 2008-11-28 08:41:37
Billw,
You think the Ragman might have fabricated the whole thing? I wouldn't put it past him to do that, so he can say "Oh I'm the big bad Ragman, I'm so tough I defeated a boycott!" I wonder why the advertisers and distributors would put up with the Ragman putting that idea out there too, fabricated or otherwise.
Offline
#12 2008-11-28 08:48:03
All I know is, the boycott idea did work in Marion. A large group of residents got together and signed a petition saying they would not shop at any rag supporting businesses, then circulated copies to the businesses. Many businesses got upset with some of the Rag stories and dropped their rag support. He apparently kept on many ads just give appearance of having advertising - one business owner had to demand repeatedly his ad be taken out - he had to raise quite a stink over it before the Ragman finally dropped the ad.
That works in Marion though, where the public officials have rejected the Ragman and aren't in bed with him. Here in Wareham, the public officials and the Ragman are bosom buddies, so they can destroy anyone who objects. Just shut up, pay your taxes, support the businesses, and do as you are told.
All I can say is what a difference between the two communities. The tri towners rejected the Rag to the point where he realized that charging for the Rag would be completely fruitless.
Offline
#13 2008-11-28 09:11:57
Hamatron5000 wrote:
I wonder why the advertisers and distributors would put up with the Ragman putting that idea out there too, fabricated or otherwise.
Because, to paraphrase AJ Liebling, freedom of the press belongs to those who own one and the Slager/Sauvageau Wareham 'base' - or what remains of it - doesn't get their news on the net.
Marion is a different planet. Don't get me started.
Offline
