If you find reading Bobo's trash as nauseating and tiresome as I do. Let me sum it up. He said, "Bhah, blah, blah....blah, blah, Mr. Brady.. blah, blah, blah."

Bobo the ass!

PShooter

Liz, better get it off, he'll try and get ya for copyright infringement.

"An advertisement for the meeting appeared on the Wareham Recall 2009 web site before it appeared in local newspapers."

--and this is evidence that it was a "recall meeting," how? Even if it was, we have every right to entertain the idea of a recall. Check the Charter & shut the "F" up & go back to Halifax, Bobo.

...and I believe he's referring to a site called "onewareham", not "Wareham Recall 2009", Wow, they're interested in a meeting that brought together citizens of Wareham who are concerned about the direction of our town, so they posted information about it. Big deal if they did. I'm glad they did. I'd wish it had been put right in the face of every citizen in Wareham (that means, NOT YOU BOBO). You're an outsider who does far more harm, than good in Wareham. Go away Bobo, Go away. p.s. I believe it's CBW, not CWB. Not a big deal, but he so consistently screws up things like that, his proofreader should be slapped.

Cas, help me out here. I honestly don't have the stomach to go through and point out ALL the BS he spouts, in practically everything he writes. I don't know how you do it.

PShooter

Last edited by PShooter (2009-09-04 14:36:37)

I think the best way to handle this is to ignore Slager's response. He basically admitted to editing and changing articles without noting the changes. He will NEVER admit that Bob stated that he was not in favor of a recall and was asked to present the recall at the meeting for those who might be interested in it.

Bascially, Slager is just a mouthpiece for the Selectmen, nothing more.

As usual, he's ridiculous.  Anybody else think it's amusing that Slager "published" the letter on his site as the only Wareham-related item that was pay-to-play, and then once the letter was out elsewhere, he made it available to the world?  Almost comical how obvious it is that he was trying to hide it while still being able to claim that he published it.  I also laughed at the shot he took at the Courier.  It's a letter to the editor Bob - it's the paper's responsibility to run it, and you have the opportunity once it's published to respond, much like you did.  They have NO responsibility to contact any subjects of the letters before they're published.  Nice cheap shot, though.

He posts our e-mail, along with any response, on the fake Wareham Observer web site in order to draw traffic and attention to that politically partisan forum.

Nope.  He posts it here because he refuses to directly engage with a proven liar like Mr. Slager.  And the notion that it is "politically partisan" is ridiculous.  I can't think of a single thread on this board that has pushed a democrat or republican position.  I've probably come the closest with my comparisons of Slager to Fox News, but if anything that would be supportive of a democratic position, which I believe is the party of most, if not all of the current BOS.

We provide a valuable service to small businesses in Wareham by offering them affordable advertising rates.

And you provide a disservice to those same businesses by being hurtful to the community as a whole.

We believe these intimidation tactics against our business partners amount to terrorism.

This. Is. Insane.  It's right up there with a valid DA investigation being worse than a crack baby.  We may have different opinions, but this is so far over the yah-yah line I can't begin to understand it.

These businesses are essentially being told that if they don’t comply with the request of the boycotters they will be put out of business.

False.  They've been told by individuals that if they choose to continue to engage in irresponsible business practices, like supporting someone who is hurting the community of Wareham, then the business will be taken elsewhere.  How Slager can say this with a straight face when he himself encouraged his readers to boycott the OVM is beyond me.

A few sentences were edited a short time after the item appeared because it was, frankly, poorly worded and clearly caused confusion among some readers. We apologize for that. We corrected the problem quickly.

Close, but not quite.  The $120k swing was the crux of Slager's argument.  I'm the blogger that Bob referred to (at least I think I am - I know I pointed out the discrepancy).  Yes, he "corrected the problem", but even when the math didn't work, he kept pushing the agenda. 

Mr. Brady claims our allegation that the former board of library trustees lost $250,000 in the stock market was “irresponsible.”

It absolutely is irresponsible.  It's been what, 3 weeks since Slager made this ridiculous accusation?  And he has not come up with a shred of evidence showing this loss.  He has a bunch of documents that he can't figure out himself, and he claims that it shows $192k of loss.  He's basically saying 2 + 2 = futon.  His math just doesn't work.

Several selectmen have confirmed that (the trustees have $200k in assets).

But there's no documentation to support this.  Also, several selectmen are confirming that they heard a judget tell them that an un-named former trustee gave the judge this information.  How many people here played the telephone game in kindergarten?  How many times did the quote come through correctly?  Exactly.

Town treasurer/collector John Foster told the Observer there is no record of any donations made to the library by the former trustees in the past two years.

Again, no documentation, and no thoughts that there may have been other donations (in-kind, physical supplies, etc) made.  Ridiculous

That does not take into account any donations that might have been made to the group since June 2008, however, or any earnings they may have received from capital gains or dividends.

Nor does it take into account any of the above-mentioned other types of donations.  Nor does it take into account the decade or so of fantastic returns the trustees got on the money which allowed them to make significant donations throughout that time.  Again, ridiculous

In fact, the former trustees have made no attempt to contact us in any way.

This is completely understandable.  If you go to the zoo and a monkey throws poo at you, you don't attempt to explain to the monkey why it shouldn't throw poo.  Unless, of course, you're me, and you're too stubborn to realize that the monkey is going to throw poo no matter what you do.  Was that metaphor straightforward enough?

As far as Mr. Brady’s “community” meeting, it is the Observer’s belief that the intention of it was to gain support for a recall.

This. Is. Also. Insane.

An advertisement for the meeting appeared on the Wareham Recall 2009 web site before it appeared in local newspapers.

Wasn't the first mention of this meeting on this very website?  Is this what he's calling the Wareham Recall 2009 site? 

Mr. Brady has refused to respond to questions by the Observer as to why that ad was sent to that web site before it was printed elsewhere if his meeting wasn't intended to spur a recall effort.

I'm not going to speak for Mr. Brady, but I come up with two reasonable explanations for this without thinking very hard about it.  (1) Similar to what Slager claims Donahue did with the Cape Verdeans for Free Speech (I think that's what it was) ad, the people on the Wareham Recall site might have just pulled the content from here and posted it themselves.  (2) Mr. Brady might have assumed they would be interested in the meeting, and sent them the content which they published.  Neither of these makes it a recall meeting.

He has also refused to respond to questions as to why the names of board members of the Citizens for a Better Wareham were suddenly erased

I don't know why this happened, but it has nothing to do with a recall.  I'm sure Mr. Brady didn't explain why the Red Sox gambled on Penny and Smoltz instead of investing in Sabbathia or Texeira.  Does that mean that those signings were part of the recall effort?  Slager attempts to "Glenn Beckify" about a half dozen people in this article.  By this, I mean that he throws out a ridiculous accusation, or makes a ridiculous statement, and then when the target of the accusation refuses to pay any attention to it (because it's ridiculous), he says "AHA!  SEE!  I TOLD YOU!!!".  So transparent, and so sad.

or why creators of the Wareham Recall 2009 web site refuse to identify themselves.

Isn't this a question better suited for the creators of the site?  Why would Brady know the answer to this?  Unless, of course, he took 10 seconds to go to the site and see that the creators themselves answered it.  We are a group of people interested in a recall.  Because the Selectmen have unfairly targeted their opponents, we do not reveal members of this organization.  Of course, some supporters of the recall will become known when they sign affidavits or petitions.  However, membership in this organization itself will remain private except to a few people running the E-mail operations.

The Observer also attended the meeting.

Let me finish that for you: The Observer also attended the meeting, where Mr. Slager was uninvited and unwelcome, and his mere presence caused a disturbance that delayed the beginning of the meeting by about 20 minutes, time that Mr. Brady had paid for and now cannot get back.

For nearly two hours Mr. Brady led a rally against the town’s current administration

It was no "rally".  There was no flag waving.  Aside from the parts where townmembers tore Mr. Slager a new one, it was a very civil conversation about the issues facing the town of Wareham.  There was no opinion, it was strictly fact.  This is an absolute misrepresentation of the meeting.

At the end he informed audience members how tcontact the organizers of a recall effort.

I believe his exact quote was something to the effect of "I do not support a recall, I do not want a recall, and I am not involved in a recall.  However, there are some people who do support the idea.  If you are one of those people, here is some information"

Based on those facts we maintain our position that this was a recall meeting, despite Mr. Brady’s contention it was not.

So let me get this straight.  An unknown person posted information about the meeting on a recall website, when Mr. Brady posted it on a site that had nothing to do with a recall.  Mr Brady stated multiple times in the meeting that he doesn't support a recall.  Mr. Brady listed things that are bad about the current administration, and laid out a series of dates leading to the April election to try to do something about the leadership in the town.  Mr. Brady at the end of the meeting told people that if they choose to support a recall, some people are trying to set one up, but he's not involved and doesn't support it.  Based on this information, Slager thinks it was a recall meeting.  It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

...even through this $40,000 was attributed to a law suit. Why would the library spend $40,000 in legal fees on a lawsuit when the library itself wasn't involved in any lawsuits?

No, false again.  $40,000 was attributed to legal fees.  Again, the number was less than $40,000, and works out to about one week of a lawyer's time per year.  There are any number of issues that could eat up one week of time per year, but Slager's argument is basically "I can't do the research to figure out what this was spent on, so it must have been to pay the trustees!"  Again, he has not provided any evidence to back up his claim, instead using a baseless accusation to try to shame the trustees into capitulating to his demands.  Bravo to the trustees for not feeding the troll.

We are still waiting for Mr. Brady to present evidence to support a previous irresponsible and defamatory writte claim that the Observer falsifies its web site statistics. Our web site statistics are monitored by an outside firm. We can prove the accuracy of our numbers.

If you can prove the accuracy, do it.  Release your webalizer reports for all of us to see.  We'll see then how accurate your representation of the numbers was. 

And finally, we find it fascinating that Mr. Brady would ask, in his final line, for the Observer to alter its editorials more to his liking.

This isn't at all what he said.  He said that people who hurt Wareham should stop doing so.  Slager's spin on this is akin to someone saying "stop punching me, it hurts", and having him interpret that as "it's fascinating that you would ask me to alter my fist behavior more to your liking".  There's always a place for editorial lean.  Bob starts the letter with that exact note, comparing the Times to the Journal.  However, I have to agree with Bob here that when the lean is supported only by distortions and mistruths that it is irresponsible and hurtful to the community.

We don’t believe that there should only be one viewpoint in Wareham.

Neither does Bob.  Where I think Bob and I agree, though, and we disagree with you, is that there's only room for one set of FACTS.  When you start making up your own, it is hurtful, and I hope you stop.

Apologies for any typos in here - had to write this in a hurry, have plans tonight

I'll analyze this in more detail later, but note last week he was saying (lying) $40,000 was taken from town funds to pay the library trustees lawyer, and now when called out on the carpet by Brady, he's saying in his response letter that $40,000 was paid to the selectmen's lawyer.  A tried and true Bobo tactic - when caught in a lie, change your tune.

Caught in a lie, Bobo.  Resign immediately.  And while you're writing 10 pagers to the Courier, why don't you find some time to write a column demanding Sweet Brucey's resignation for lying to you about the audit?  Oh wait, you won't because you enjoy being Bobo the Brucey Dupe.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-04 18:08:25)

ACasualobserver:
Thank you.
You are a very special person, and I know you would never seek public office, but I wish you would.
Thank you.
I am Hamatron5000.

slager wanted me to give pshooter a message that SOME people were interested in talking to him.. eventually slager & pshooter hooked up slager did all the asking no OTHER people just him...

my point he should be selling cars with the art and nact to deflect and dodge.. maybe if he gave up an "source" cbw would list the members maybe???

i am a political operative as slager has informed me many times.. i will find out his dirty secrets..

00GNOME ON THE CASE..

If all the "sources" that Slager references and all the people that contact him were real, he would have had plenty more people at the Silent protest!  Let's face it, he is full of baloney and on his way out. He's lost his office, he's behind on his printing bills, and he is squawking about the DA. In my opinion, he will blame his demise on the hate bloggers, power elite, and ANYONE but himself.

Hmm, of course, the accusation of someone being a terrorist in a newspaper that is SOLD (not free), could constitute libel???? Just thinking here....Steve, Bob....what do you think?

Since Larry asked....

Dolores and I have been enjoying the week here in TN recharging our batteries or at least mine for the work ahead for the next six months.

I am focused on our issues and studying them. The issues facing our town are significant and we need to keep our eyes and our focus on the ball.

As you know he accused me of being a terrorist and suggested I move to North Korea, well I thought about it and decided my time would be better spent as a Selectman working day and night to solve our issues in town.

He writes one of his usual pieces and you all give it life for days and sometimes weeks.He is insignificant and you really need to ignore him.

Our campaign will move forward presenting issues to voters and residents and Slager is neither of these.

Our first major task is town meeting, your mission is to get out and talk, email, text anyone you know and get them committed to attend.

We have a series of meetings planned to discuss this agenda and have folks come an educate us to the warrants.

Following town meeting we will be focused on the April election and we will need your help to expand our grassroots community.

Slager is baiting you with his writings because he knows you will spend your time writing threads about it. Just try not to for one week and see what happens, maybe starting this Monday this site will be Slager free and we limit our threads to focus on town meeting.

No matter what he writes no response for one week. He will have nothing to say and you will have done more harm to him that you could imagine.

So let's focus on our meetings we will help you organize them and let's commit to focus on town meeting

Last edited by searay240 (2009-09-06 12:31:25)

searay240 wrote:

...well I thought about it and decided my time would be better spent as a Selectman working day and night to solve our issues in town.

Our campaign will move forward presenting issues to voters and residents and Slager is neither of these.

We have a series of meetings planned to discuss this agenda and have folks come an educate us to the warrants.

Following town meeting we will be focused on the April election and we will need your help to expand our grassroots community.

Awesome! Searay240 for Selectman!!!

Steve, your the man, and I'm behind you a hunnert percent. Thanks and congratulations.


Look out, here we come.

PShooter

Bobo, just read your jeer. You really are a douche bag. Your hated in Wareham, and probably unknown in Halifax. Why don't you try and run for office in Halifax, see how that works out. Steve has something that is alien to you, INTEGRITY. Again, your a douche bag & go fuck yourself.



PShooter

Good for you Steve!
RUN STEVE! RUN!!!

BOBO THE BRUCEY DUPE SAID:

This is a man who wishes to take a seat in the most powerful elected board in Wareham. There is nothing else that needs to be said.

Oh, I know, Bobo, if only he were a tax cheating road rageaholic like your beloved Sweet Brucey.  Or a dirt thief like your buddy Cronie. 

Steve, you'll have to get out there and break a few laws if you want Bobo's support.

congrats steve.. anything you need let me know..I SUPPORT YOU..

Steve,
First, let's get to the important part! How did you like Saturday in TN when the VOLS played? A 63-7 drubbing of WKU and I bet Dolores family was crazy (just like it was here at my house!) Enjoy those good folks and remember, football is not a sport in TN, it's a religion! 

You know how I feel about you running, and I just want to say congrats again! You have had the opportunity to meet and greet some very good people from this town and realize that good people throughout this town are willing to hit the streets and phones to support you!

Of course, it will be Bobo's major task and goal to discredit you, even though he had to print a retraction the first time he lied about you. You are right, we should just brush him off like the drifting piece of dirt he is.  I will do my level best to ignore him, but I will also encourage Casual to discredit him because BOTH sides read this site, and they deserve to know the truth.

I was hoping for a quiet fall, but what the heck! Count the McDonalds in on your staff and support crew. It does my heart good to see a man with integrity, honesty, and good values want to be part of rebuilding this town from the smoldering pile the current Selectmen created!


See you next week! and let's get this started! Steve Holmes for Selectmen!!!!!

HOW LONG BEFORE SLAGER ACCUSSES HIM OF BEING A MEMBER OF THE CBW

This is my last Slager-related post for a while (at least unless he writes something so egregious I can't let it go).  I saw the jeer that he wrote, and this line stuck out like a sore thumb to me:

We're grateful for that for one reason. That means he's a public figure now. That finally gives us the chance to share a few things with the good people of Wareham.

What is it about this line that sticks out so much?  "That means he's a public figure now."  Slager could have written everything he wrote in that jeer whether Steve was, or wasn't, a public figure.  I will direct everybody, though, to the Wikipedia page about Defamation.  There is a significant difference in libel law when one becomes a public figure.  In order to make a libel claim, the public figure must prove that statements were made "knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth".  This is significantly stronger wording than for non-public figures, the plaintiff basically just needs to show that the publisher didn't know it was true.  This may seem like a minor difference, but it's huge in practice.  Slager basically said in his jeer "Mr. Holmes is now a public figure, so I can lie about him more without getting in trouble." 

It's absolutely astonishing that he would admit to this in publication, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised anymore.  It's comical that he takes a quote where Steve says to be "respectful" and implies that it's Steve's fault that the alleged hateful actions (which Slager has never provided any evidence of) happened.  Steve didn't "incite the crowd" at Bob's meeting, he called out Slager for the partisan shill (to use his term) that he is.

It would all be funny if it wasn't so sad...

all steve did is say what nearly all in attendance was already thinking..this is backed up by the cheering and standing ovation..