Okay, let's examine his support from the Cape Verdean community. In his paper was an advertisement for a peaceful protest and the ad was from Cape Verdeans for free speech.
Now, we all saw the "protest" before Bob's meeting. Do you recall anyone but Slager and Donahue peacefully protesting?

I find you offensive, Mr. Holmes. Last summer a group of more than 100 Cape Verdean residents met to discuss concerns about perceived racial stereotyping by police. The Observer hadn't even written about the alleged policy brutality situation when that meeting was launched. We had absolutely nothing to do with it.

What in the world does this have to do with what he wrote in his paper about the Brady meeting. It was a separate time and situation.

There is no evidence because I've never taken a dime from these people (unlike the Standard-Times, which accepted thousands of dollars from Brady).

Brady placed an advertisement in the newpaper, not sure how much it costs, but I'm pretty sure Slager is pissed because he didn't get the money. He does accept advertisement, so what the heck is he talking about?

Okay, I have to get up early, but PLEASE someone take over, this is too easy.


Steve, you have my emails. Do with them what you want. This man is nothing more than a pile of dirt that needs to be swept up in a dust pan.

what does the audit have to do with you steve?

between him and john d i aska question and they load me with a sea of useless crap i wade thru it to find an answer and quess what no answer when i keep on asking slager ignores me tells me about my political agenda and how i just want to ruin his paper he has also called me a political opperative for the porolas, hate blogger political facist, bob brady political etc you get the picture i am busier than the president..

daGNOME is not a disguise that really is me..

searay240,

It's evident that your Bobo friend has a double standard.  While on one hand he suggests that because I spent mone(not "thousands") for the invitation ad, I'm receiving favorable reporting from the S-t.  But there is "evidence" that The Wareham Observer has received "several thousands" of dollars as the go to publication for Wareham's legal notices like town meeting, personnel vacancies, planning board hearings and tax title takings to name a few.  So of course he has to give the BOS favorable reporting otherwise they will pull his life line and their mouthpiece.

As to the Cape Verde "support" he speaks of, please note that if it weren't for "John T Donahue Associates's" political effort then Sweet Brucey, Brenda and Cronan wouldn't have got elected.  Niether of them have what it takes to run a successful campaign.  They all needed the DTC to pull it off.  I'll suggest that after Mr. Donahue's "race baiting" attempt that he's losing his Cape Verde support.  They are intelligent people and can finally see through his BS.  How many of those same supporters showed up to the peaceful protest ?  Not one.

Last edited by bbrady (2009-08-12 09:42:56)

bbrady wrote:

searay240,

It's evident that your Bobo friend has a double standard.
While on one hand he suggests that because I spent money (not "thousands") for the invitation ad, I'm receiving favorable
reporting from the S-t.  But there is "evidence" that The
Wareham Observer has received "several thousands" of
dollars as the go to publication for Wareham's legal notices
like town meeting, personnel vacancies, planning board hearings
and tax title takings to name a few.  So of course he has to give
the BOS favorable reporting otherwise they will pull his life line and
their mouthpiece.

on this note i have confronted him about his coverage of MSR and a lisa bindas she advertises in his paper she also gave to selectmans campaigns and not once has the BOS OR SLAGER asked any of the other 9 residents of which 2 are only summer homes what they thought or thier opinion and these 9 houses are directly on MSR... his answer he wasnt bias he ran a couple of adds around christmas..
he also came out with a libray story at 215isham with quotes from bruce s. then he wrote another later in the day stating he called bruce at 715am. HOW THE HELL DID HE GET A 715 QUOTE AT 215ISH?? his answer he had added more to the story when more info was made to him.. bs i saved the original copies.
on a side note he has told me several times in open dialogue on his site for all to read i am stealing and violating his copyright by posting contents of his paper but our town moderator takes an an placed by someone else and has a mass email(not his moderators account) and slager never says a word to him political bias.. it is there in black and white...

Liz stated above that "on a side note he has told me several times in open dialogue on his site for all to read i am stealing and violating his copyright by posting contents of his paper but our town moderator takes an an placed by someone else and has a mass email(not his moderators account) and slager never says a word to him political bias.. it is there in black and white..."

I believe that as long as you indicate that you are quoting someone as I just did, you are not violating the copyright. Some of you readers of the rag---can you find anyplace where slager quotes one of the other papers in his stories? I know I have seen that in the past when I was a reader of the rag. And if he lifts some of his stories from the other papers---and I have seen this done--without quoting the source, that is very bad.

I wouldn't worry but always be sure to say things like slager stated, or according to ragboy, etc.

Last edited by Molly (2009-08-12 11:13:18)

I'm intrigued by the editor of the on line paper claiming that the audio tape of the meeting last week, because no one was advised or gave permission to be taped, is a felony.
HUH?
Cite the chapter and section of any State of Federal law that denotes recording a public meeting a felony.
Anyone?
Of course not.

I knew it wouldn't be long as he lurks for his writing material.
And Slager asks:

"Hello, Mr. Brady. Just curious. Was your "community" meeting public or private? You claimed it was private. Is that still your position? If so, any recording of the meeting without permission of the audience is an illegal wiretapping. That's a felony in Massachusetts. Stop trying to spin it on Whitehouse's web site. It's a direct question. Do you have the courage to answer it directly? Was your meeting public or private?"

Robert Slager

LET ME THINK...Do I have the "courage" ?  YES, but I don't have time for his BS.  Oh well,  he'll just have to print his BS without me as he does with or without a comment

Anybody else here as scared as I guess I should be ?


Subj: "I beleive the phrase you're looking for is "uh-oh." 
Date: 8/12/2009 11:51:17 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Warehamobserver@aol.com
To: bbrady@onewareham.com

Hopefully this is the last of him and he'll go away but I doubt it.
He's a wanna be lawyer.  He knows all the laws.  I just wish he'd
apply half of them to the many violations by our current administration
and write about it.  Instead he'll change the subject and blame the "power elite" or CBW or the hate bloggers.  Who are the "power elite" anyway ?
I would like to meet them as I hear so much about their group.

Subj: (no subject) 
Date: 8/12/2009 11:55:03 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
From: Warehamobserver@aol.com
To: bbrady@onewareham.com
Sent from the Internet (Details)



"One last thing. Since I didn't speak at your meeting, I wasn't a victim of an illegal wire-tapping. I am asking on behalf of somebody else who did speak."

(He's not signing it any more)

"One last thing. Since I didn't speak at your meeting, I wasn't a victim of an illegal wire-tapping. I am asking on behalf of somebody else who did speak."

What the hell?  Doesn't wiretapping require...you know....a wire?

So by Slager's logic, if I have a private birthday party for my kids somewhere, and record it for posterity, I've committed a felony unless all parties in attendance have agreed to the recording ahead of time?

If he ever calls me wife a troll again, he might be getting a visit. Then we will see if he likes anyone to challenge him face to face.

I know he better be apologizing to Liz very soon. I just happen to have time before I leave tomorrow. If you think she is angry, you should see me when someone calls me wife a troll. Please tell me you are more of a man than what you display?

Let him play this stupid bullshit game and spend thousands of dollars trying to sue you, finding out in the end that he can't.

Oh wait, he wont do that, he'll only threaten to sue you, or threaten to have others sue you.

You don't have to answer him Bob.  He's just a a-hole.

I hate to end his fire-breathing, but public or private it doesn't matter.....

The BOS called for an open session at that location and never left.  PUBLIC by default in my book!

I spoke at the meeting, I did not have a problem with the tape, actually I was hoping for video as well I wore my bestest blue golf shirt.

Keep the emails coming Mr Slager, your distributors and advertisers will love to see the temperment of the person behind the paper.

Steve,
It appears the OVM is playing both sides? He is now going to carry the Wareham Pravda. Oh well, good luck to him! :)

I'm okay with you posting it PShoot! You are the man!

Smack 'em in the kneecaps Darlin!

The Selectmen, as far as my memory goes, are obligated to advertise legal ads in a publication that reaches most of the people of Wareham.
That's the way it used to be. I am not at all sure if that is still true. I have looked at the Charter and Town By-Laws, but it isn't mentioned.
I think it may be an "unwritten" thing.

Don't you all remember the bos meeting where Brenda made a motion for a policy to only put the legal advertisements such as the warrant for town meeting in the newspaper with the cheapest rates--aka the rag? It was under John McAullife's brief time in Wareham and he was opposed to that idea. Her motion did not pass. It was a blatant attempt to give the business to her lackey.

I tried to find info on the parameters for a "legal paper" in which towns could place their legal notifications. The only thing I could find was for Arkansas. They had a whole list of requirements two of which were, the paper could not be free, and it had to have at least 5 columns. I couldn't find anything for Ma. or Wareham.

In order to get a card, you must be a registered voter.  They check the voter list, but they don't check identification of the alleged registered voter.

I believe you get that from the town clerk. I think it is on disc. I'm sure it will cost but probably  not that much.

Well, call me crazy, but I had hoped to have an adult conversation with Mr. Slager today.  As I stated previously, his jeer about Bill's August numbers was so factually inaccurate that the only responsible action would be to issue a written retraction.  Given that there was a lot of posting going on last night with "Tuesday Night Live", I wanted to make sure he saw it, so I emailed him to confirm.  Then this happened.  He hasn't responded to my most recent note, and since he's apparently been berating Larry via email this afternoon/evening, I'm guessing he just has nothing more to say.  Everything below is direct copy/paste

Now, I know I probably shouldn't be surprised, but I actually had some high hopes for this conversation.  I thought that in a situation as cut-and-dry as this, he would do the right thing.  I thought he'd do the responsible thing.  I thought he'd follow through on his claims to be a "journalist".  As you'll see, none of that happened.  His completely false post remains, even though he has been made fully aware that it is a blatant misrepresentation of the truth.  I have to believe that, if Bill accepted advertisers on this site, that Slager's jeer would qualify as libel.  It's knowingly false, it sure as heck seems to have been written with malicious intent, and it would have had the potential to cause damages if an advertiser saw it and thought Bill was misrepresenting his numbers.  Honestly, I'm astonished at how irresponsible he is with his "reporting".  For all that I, and others, have said here, I really held out hope that when presented with a list of facts contradicting something that he had written, he would acknowledge the facts, correct what he had done, and issue a proper retraction.  This is truly a sad day for Wareham, when a "journalist" responds to a factual contradiction of his writings in this way.

My original email, sent last night.  As always, these are exact and complete quotes, lest Mrs Slager or "Shooter" accuse me of lying:

Mr. Slager,

You and I have had our disagreements, but I feel that I have to point out to you how badly you misinterpreted Bill Whitehouse's website statistics.  Your post was factually incorrect in just about all regards, and showed a fundamental lack of understanding of web architectures and Webalizer reports.  I have posted a breakdown of thefactual inaccuracies in your jeer at August Numbers.  I am writing to ensure that you see that post, as there has been quite a bit of traffic on Bill's site tonight.

The entire "jeer" is written on an incorrect premise, and I truly hope that you are responsible enough to take it down and post a written retraction.  This isn't an issue of opinion Mr. Slager, your facts were very wrong.

As an offer of peace, I would be happy to answer any questions you might have about website architectures, or Webalizer reports.  As I hope was evident in my post, I am quite knowledgeable in this area, and can help you avoid similar mistakes in the future.  Contrary to what you may think, I'm not out to get you, or out to get the BOS. I'm out to get factually correct reporting that accurately reflects what the situation is.  If I can help you do that, I would be happy to do so.

Strongly-worded, perhaps, but entirely accurate.  I even offered to help the guy.  This was the response a few hours later:

I wasn't planning on giving you the attention you apparently so desperately crave, but are you actually trying to tell me you don't understand the difference between requests, pages, files and hits while claiming to be knowledgeable in this area? I am truly trying not to laugh. I really am.
   Also, I do use Webalizer and it doesn't generate reports even close to what Whitehouse put on his web site. It is far more detailed and isn't designed anywhere close to Whitehouse's graphic.
   If I can steal back the line you've repeatedly stolen from me, it would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Now run along and go play with your six or seven partisan buddies. You do realize that Hammatron has at least a dozen screen names, don't you?
   Oh, one last thing. You can try to bait me as much as you'd like with your laughable distortions and sad pleas for attention. I'm not playing. You're welcome to join the Observer Media web site anytime you'd wish,  but we both know you will not. You wouldn't last three minutes one-on-one and you know it.
   Cheers.

Well, at least he said "Cheers".  I mean, I didn't really know where to start with this, but I tried to compose a reply.  This was sent back to Slager this morning, and I have not yet gotten a response:

Mr. Slager,

I can't say that I understand why you responded in the way you did.  You don't know who I am, so I don't see how you can claim to know my motivations, but if I was so desperate for attention, why wouldn't I be using my real name?  The answer is that I distinctly do not want the attnention.  Again, I want you to report things accurately and completely.  If you start doing that, my posts and emails will go away.  Your sentence "...are you actually trying to tell me you don't understand the difference between requests, pages, files and hits while claiming to be knowledgeable in this area?" doesn't quite make sense.  The Webalizer documentation states:

Pages are, well, pages!  Generally, any HTML document, or anything
that generates an HTML document, would be considered a page.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but how can you read that, and still make the argument that you did around his news threads?  This isn't me talking, this is the people that made the software.  Out of curiosity, what were your hits, requests, etc for last month?  Are you going to publish this information?

I figured you use webalizer.  When you were threatening Mr. Brady, I did a quick web search and found this page http://support.bondware.com/index.php?_ … cleid=125. You also showed during that conversation that you didn't understand the difference between "Visits" and "Visitors", but that's another conversation for another day.  As for your accusations about Hammatron, what are you basing that on?  What are his/her other screen names?  I don't know who he/she is, so if you have evidence behind this claim (IP addresses, his/her other usernames, something like that), I would be interested to know.

As for the invitation to Observer Media.  I would be happy to join if you take away the fees.  I proposed a solution that solved both of our problems with posting on the 'other' site - it would have allowed you to engage in direct conversation with me without joining Bill's site (and avoid folks like IHS and IHL), and it would have allowed me to directly converse with you without having to pay for the privilege.  As I've said before, the fact that you rail against other "elites", while you yourself run a walled chat on a weekly basis, where the only way to participate is to pay, is hypocritical.  To be perfectly frank, I don't know Bill from a hole in the head.  I post on his site because it is the only place to do so for free. 

I have one final question for you.  When you previously wrote about your website statistics, and Mr. Brady accused you of making them up, you threatened him with legal action because you said the reports were provided by Bondware and he didn't have the information to make such a claim.  Now, you're making claims without information (unless you've seen Bill's logs), or knowledge of basic terms in the world of web applications, and his reports are provided by the same software.  How is this situation different?

You'll notice that I've never backed down from a question from you.  You may disagree with the responses, but I hope you can afford me the same respect that I've afforded you in this regard.  As I've stated repeatedly, I would love to engage in a constructive discussion with you, and the ball is now in your court.  I will also repeat my offer to help you in these areas that you appear to not understand, and again call for you to issue a retraction for an analysis that you know is factually incorrect

-Cas

ps - For reference, the display (colors, graphs, columns, etc) can be modified using the webalizer.conf file, or several other config files, and different versions of the software have different default "look and feel".  The latest version is 2.21 - what version are you using?  Perhaps that is why it looks different than what you are looking at?

Don't know what to say at this point, aside from saying that I'll obviously not be trying to help him anymore.  I'll continue to post my analyses here, and hope that people who are more open-minded than Mr. Slager take the time to read.

Edit: somehow put a comma in the middle of a word, corrected

Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs

Last edited by acasualobserver (2009-09-02 21:24:35)

Casual,
His claim that you wouldn't last 3 minutes on his site is probably true. You would be pulling out your hair from the ignorance and hypocrisy that his posters display. It would be a waste of 5 bucks. Of course, he would never meet you in neutral ground. He is a gutless, lying, sack of doo-doo (sentence enhancer). He is now grandstanding in hopes of being drug into the DA investigation. He no longer cares to write factual articles, he would rather play the martyr for his 6 followers. To be honest, he is losing what is left of his business, and wants to be able to blame it on someone other than himself.

I would never presume to speak for others, but I enjoy reading your analysis of his shoddy work.

To put it in perspective, he isn't that important in the bigger scheme of things, but it is important to debunk his work for the sake of the good people of Wareham.

Ham is only Ham and no one else.  Gee whiz, if all this hooplah the past few months was all over trying to figure out how many Hams there are, I'd of saved them from taking thousands of taxpayer dollars from God knows where and saved Sweet Brucey from being grilled by the Grand Jury and told them there was only one Ham. 

I suppose the "Ham is a dozen people" story is a good story to tell the tin foil hat squad over at Bobo's site when they ask why there is so much BOS and Bobo criticism so they will keep shilling out their 5 bucks.  Sorry Bobo, whoever the dozen are - they are actually 12 people that think you're a collossal dick.

I didn't realize that the word "Ham" was such a major spelling test either.  It's "Ham" not "Hamm."  Odd, I notice both Bobo and Paul Shooter routinely spell it wrong.  I'm sure that doesn't mean that Paul is one of Bobo's multiple personalities come to life or anything, but I am really surprised that it is possible for two people in one area to be that stupid.  Someone call Guinness, it's a new World's Record.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-03 03:53:35)

I am Hamatron5000.

No, no, no.  I'm Hamatron5000