#1 2009-11-13 13:41:39
I HAVE TALKED WITH A FEW PEOPLE AND THEY ARE WILLING TO FINANCE AN INDEPENDANT POLYGRAPH TEST (LIE DETECTOR). I CHALLENGE ROBERT SLAGER TO TAKE THIS TEST REGARDING THE TRUTHFULLNESS OF HIS LIBRARY STORY. IM SURE THE PILLSBURYS AND THE FRIENDS WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM TAKING THE TEST, BUT WILL YOU MR SLAGER?
Offline
#2 2009-11-13 13:48:29
Slager would probably pass a lie detector test because he is delusional and believes his own lies.
Offline
#3 2009-11-13 15:32:57
I WROTE THIS HOURS AGO AND STILL HAVE NOT SEEN AN ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION FROM SLAGER. I KNOW HE READS THIS WEBSITE CONSTANTLY AND AM STILL WAITING FOR A RESPONSE.
Offline
#4 2009-11-13 16:17:54
STILL WAITING..............................................................
Offline
#5 2009-11-13 16:19:34
IHS he's never gonna do it..just like he's never gonna have anything that substantiates any of his claims..the latest?? Demanding WE give EVIDENCE to support claims that he lies..Funny if it weren't so..
Nice idea though..and I agree with Mixie..Bobo might fail..but Paul Shooter or any number of other possible personalities might just fool the thing.
Keep pushing Bobo how it's soooo necessary we demand an investigation..How 'bout you Bobo?? Oh no..how can I say that?? I must be "in on it"..and 10,000 hits last week, huh? Oh, I'm sure you're ready to back that up with all kinds of crap..your numbers must be right, right?? I have a site also, and Cas has explained to all us that any "movement" within a site from one section to another can account for how many hits each?? Just keeping a page opened for a certain length of time (though only one visit) can rack up "hits" pretty quickly as well. Your sad...Cas, where are ya??
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Last edited by PShooter (2009-11-13 16:21:13)
Offline
#6 2009-11-13 16:45:41
here I am PShooter!
a) He removed access to his statistics after I pointed out that they were available, and analyzed them showing that nobody cared what he was saying.
a.1) If he were to make them available again, I wouldn't trust the numbers at all, because he knows that people would be looking at them - when he didn't realize that they were open to the world, he would have no reason to fudge the stats. Now he does.
b) He has shown in the past that he doesn't understand the difference between hits, pageviews, visits, and visitors, so take anything he's saying with a grain of salt.
c) He has also admitted in the past that he himself was responsible for 1/8 of either his hits or his pageviews - I forget which one it was, and don't have the time to rifle through my email to find it.
d) All of that being said, I'd bet that his stats shot up, just because he's writing things that are so ridiculous and controversial people are intrigued/amazed/laughing hysterically. Think about it - a couple of months ago he wrote about how he didn't have the money to stay in his office, had fallen behind on his payments to the printer, etc. Then his precious Westfield fails and he's further discredited. Now all of the sudden he's ready to come forward with a story he's been sitting on for two years, is full of controversy, and oh-by-the-way is available in the pay section of his website only? Come on, I've been saying for months that it's all about the money for him, and this is just further evidence that I was right. He said somewhere (on the Courier, maybe?) that he put it in the pay per view section only because the article was too long for the free page - the inside allows articles to be twice as long. The easy answer there, if he really wanted to serve the community, is to simply put it in two posts on the front page. He's obviously going to write a bunch of blog posts about this, and continue to attack this town for as long as he can, so why not break it out? Oh, then people wouldn't have to pay to see the rest of the story. Shocking....
Offline
#7 2009-11-13 18:00:06
Yep, When he mentioned (boasted) the number of pageviews I took it as evidence he was pleased he had achieved his intent, which was to drive up interest/$$ (truth, whatever)..and I felt the numbers were "bloated"..Also, like you said, he could have put it up in two parts, or put up half and you have to pay for the rest..instead he had a "build-up" story, which included a sizable portion of the article (maxed at 32k character's??)..then the library trustee interview comes out, and nothing but one paragraph..unless you cough up the cash.
I guess after "winning" the Joyce case, but not getting the green like he'd hoped and expected, he intends to get his pound of flesh one way or the other. Don't fall victim.
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
Offline
#8 2009-11-13 18:28:58
Lie detector tests are not very reliable. And Mixie, you are right. He probably would pass since he really believes his own lies. Not a good idea
Offline
#9 2009-11-13 20:14:17
HOW ABOUT WATER BOARDING THE BASTARD , OR MAYBE SODIUM PENTHAL.
Offline
#10 2009-11-14 07:42:29
WELL A DAY HAS PAST, SLAGER HAS UPDATED HIS WEBSITE YESTERDAY AND HE IGNORED MY CHALLENGE. WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU FOLKS? HE IS UNWILLING TO TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST REGARDING THE LIBRARY STORY? SPEAKS VOLUMES. SLAGER HIS NO CRYSTAL BALLS.
Offline
#11 2009-11-14 08:05:48
I have to agree with the posters above, Bobo is a cold blooded sociopath and probably could beat a liar detector test because his mental problems probably do cause him to believe his own lies.
However, Bobo could arrange for a lie detector operator to give lie detector test to Paula Shooter and sign a sworn affidavit (punishable by jail time for perjury if he lies) saying he met with a trustee and gave a lie detector test.
By the way, did I miss something? Last week he was saying he only had one trustee, this week he says he has two? Does he add a new trustee every week? Can't keep his story straight?
Offline
#12 2009-11-14 08:12:51
I THOUGHT it was 3 trustees but only 2 would tesstify in court.. slager will go to jail to protect his sources he said......
Offline
#13 2009-11-14 09:00:38
Well....pack him a toothbrush and some vaseline...
Offline
#14 2009-11-14 13:47:47
..have him bring the jar he shares with Sweet Brucey!!
Offline
#15 2009-11-14 21:42:44
WELL I FINALLY GOT BOBO'S ANSWER THROUGH THE COURIER WEBSITE AND THE ANSWER IS NO. HE IS NOT WILLING TO DO A POLYGRAPH. HE DIDNT ANSWER THE QUESTION AND SPUN THE QUESTION TO WHY DONT I TAKE ONE LOL. THIS GUY IS INSANE. BUT NO LIE DETECTOR FOR BOBO. ANYONE BELIEVE HIM NOW????????????????????
Offline
#16 2009-11-15 06:46:46
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#17 2009-11-15 09:02:11
IH8S17 hours ago
Report Abuse
BOBO CARE TO TAKE A POLYGRAPH ABOUT THE TRUTHFULNESS OF YOUR LIBRARY STORY? YOU'VE IGNORED MY CHALLENGE SO FAR ON THE REAL OBSERVER SITE
WarehamObserver14 hours ago
Report Abuse
If I'm called to testify in court I would be happy too.
IH8S12 hours ago
Report Abuse
NOT WHAT I ASKED BOBO, IM OFFERING YOU TO TAKE ONE RIGHT NOW, NO COST TO. STILL WAITING................
WarehamObserver12 hours ago
Report Abuse
Is that meant as a joke? An anonymous blogger who uses the screen name 'IHATESLAGER' on another web site wants me to allow him to administer a lie detector test to me? Wow. That's funny, even for you. Tell you what, why don't you share your real name with everyone on this site and agree to allow me to ask you a few questions of my own? And while you're at it why don't you call on the former board of library trustees to open their financial records to everyone? I'm not talking about 990 forms. I mean a complete list of who donated money, where that money went and what it was spent on. Then I'll consider your offer. Until then, I repeat what I said earlier, I would be happy to submit to a lie detector test if called to testify in court. Will you?
IH8S11 hours ago
Report Abuse
LIKE I SAID (AND DONT TELL ME YOU HAVENT READ MY CHALLENGE ON OTHER SITE) I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO ADMINSTER A LIE DETECTOR TEST. AN INDENPENDANT COMPANY WOULD BE THE ONE CONDUCTING THE TEST. NO JOKE ! IN NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM HAVE I EVER SAID I WOULD ADMINSTER THE TEST. YOU COULD HAVE JUST SAID NO. THIS SPEAKS VOLUMES TO YOUR CREDIBLITY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM TAKING A LIE DETECTOR, BUT I DIDNT WRITE A FALSE STORY??? YOU DID. IT WAS A YES OR NO QUESTION. I AND THE READERS HAVE THE ANSWER.
IH8S11 hours ago
Report Abuse
NICE JOB OF AVOIDING THE QUESTION THOUGH, LIE DETECTOR TESTS ARE NOT RECOGNIZED BY MASS LAW AND YOU NEVER WOULD BE ASKED TO DO ONE IN A COURT OF LAW. I GOT YOUR ANSWER 'NO'
WarehamObserver11 hours ago
Report Abuse
OK, let me get this straight. You are saying some anonymous people would finance this 'independent' lie detector test. You won't reveal who these people are. You won't reveal who would provide the test. You won't tell me your name. You refuse to take the test yourself (I am well aware of who you are and the reason you won't). Then you say lie dectector tests are not admissable as evidence. And you say I lack credibilty because I won't publicly agree to participate in this charade?
I was not aware that Mass Law doesn't allow for lie detector tests. Can you explain why?
This is absolutely pathetic on your part. You have a golden opportunity here to blow all of your self-described enemies at one time. If a full forensic audit of the library's financial records and computers reveal nothing, the Observer and the selectmen are toast. Yet you continue to try everything in your twisted little mind to prevent that. Why? Why won't you call on the former trustees to turn over their records? If there is nothing to fear there is nothing to hide? If you truly want to save the town the expense of a costly investigation, that would seem to be the perfectly logical step to take. Please don't sidestep this question the way I know you will. And please, my name is Robert Slager. You are an anonymous hate blogger. You use the word 'hate' in your own screen name. Would you like to explain how you have an ounce of credibility? I have another offer. If the Pillsbury family would like to sit down with me for a tape recorded conversation, I would welcome it. Stop playing these childish little games. There isn't a person reading this with an I.Q. over 30 who can't see your desperation to cover this all up.
IH8S3 hours ago
Report Abuse
WHO DO YOU CARE WHO THE PEOPLE ARE THE WOULD FINANCE IT, ITS NO COST TO YOU BOBO. YOU PICK THE COMPANY THAT WOULD CONDUCT THE TEST, HOWS THAT? YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHO I AM BUT YOU HAVE GUESSED SO MANY TIMES WRONG ITS PATHETIC. ITS NO GAME BOBO A SIMPLE NO WOULD HAVE SUFFICE. ITS OK YOU SAID IT YOURSELF YOUR A COWARD. I NEVER SAID I WOULDNT TAKE THE TEST MYSELF SPINBOY. WHAT I SAID WAS I DIDNT NEED TO TAKE IT BECAUSE I DIDNT WRITE A FALSE STORY. IM DONE WITH YOU NOW ON THIS SUBJECT. EVERYONE HAS GOT THEIR ANSWER.
IN CASE ANYONE MISSED IT HERES THE EXCHANGE BETWEEN ME AND BOBO. IF HE HAD NOTHING TO HIDE ABOUT THE TRUTHFULNESS OF HIS STORY HIS ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANYTIME, ANYWHERE. BUT NO BOBO WRITES PARAGRAPHS AVOIDING THE INTIAL QUESTION AND GOES OFF ON TANGENTS RAMBLING ON ABOUT OTHER THINGS. HES AVOIDING THE QUESTION ALL TOGETHER. IM DONE WITH HIM, YOU WILL NEVER GET AN ANSWER FROM HIM, ITS ALL ABOUT SPIN AND DEFLECTION. SAYS ALOT ABOUT HIS ARTICLE DONT YOU SAY?
Offline
#18 2009-11-15 15:23:49
Beatrice, the town will not have access to prior records once a new board if established. The former board is supposed to 'seed' the new board with $50,000. It will become a brand new entity.
IH8S, since you conveniently failed to answer the inconventient question as to why polygraph tests are not admisssable as evidence in Massachusetts, I decided to do a little research because I was honestly not aware of it and knew little about how polygraph tests works. What you apparently didn't want to share is that polygraph tests are not only inadmissable as evidence, no employer in Massachusett can use one for any reason.
Why? Because courts have ruled that polygraph tests can be easily manipulated and are therefor fundamentally flawed. People who are lying can pass the test and people who are telling the truth can fail it. Why, because polygraph tests rely on biological reactions. People with pre-existing medical conditions such as, say diabetes, in which blood sugar can quickly rise and fall, can give false readings either way.
There are also no 'independent' polygraph testing services in Massachusetts because polygraph tests cannot be used in any official capacity in the state. There are private businesses who offer tests for profit. So, you want me to agree to take a test administrated by a for-profit business and you won't tell me who is paying for the test. You know full well that I am diabetic because I have written about it many times. You know that my pre-exisiting medical condition could affect the results either way. Yet you claim my reluntance to engage in this sham is evidence that I am lying? What a joke.
If I passed this test you would turn around and discredit the result based on my diabetes. If I failed the test based on my diabetes you would say that's proof the story is false. It's a clever ploy. You challenge somebody to submit to flawed process and when they refuse you say it is evidence of wrong-doing. It's the same old strategy you've tried over and over again. You try to force somebody else to prove a negative. In this case, you have stated the story is false. You have provided no evidence to support your belief. You ask me to prove your premise using a system that isn't allowed as evidence in Massachusetts because it is fundamentally flawed. Then you use my refusal to engage in such a sham as evidence to support your initial claim.
To that all I can say is 'Nice Try.'
'
UPDATE BOBO IS NOW USING THE "DIABETES" DEFENSE ON WHY HE CANNOT TAKE A LIE DETECTOR TEST HA HA HA HA HA. THIS GUY IS NUTS. HE USES THAT DEFENSE FOR EVERYTHING. HOLY SHIT I CANT BELIEVE HE USED THE DIABETES DEFENSE ON WHY HE WONT TAKE A LIE DETECTOR LOL. HE IS TOO MUCH.
Offline
#19 2009-11-15 15:55:20
Offline
#20 2009-11-15 16:16:46
He just handed us his modis operandi on a platter..... and shows signs of being eaten alive by his own venom. Filter him out....He may be carrying a virus...
Offline
#21 2009-11-15 16:38:53
BillW...BRILLIANT!!
Isn't it nice to see IHS post the way that person really is...intelligently, knowledgeable, stable, and completely right.
I am proud of IHS...
Offline
#22 2009-11-15 18:35:08
THANKS DAN. BOBO GAVE US ALL AN EARLY CHRISTMAS PRESENT BY POSTING HIS WHOLE ARTICLE ON HIS OWN WEBSITE SHOWING WHAT A COMPLETE NUT THIS GUY IS. IF YOU READ IT, IT IS TOO FUNNY.
Claims that I will not submit to a bugus polygraph test proves the story isn't true
DOES HE MEAN BOGUS?
Offline
#23 2009-11-15 18:49:19
OH GOD I JUST READ HIS NEW POST ON THE COURIER WEBSITE. THE GUY IS LOSING HIS MIND. AGAIN WHY SHOULD I ANSWER ANY OF HIS QUESTIONS WHEN HE REFUSES TO ANSWER JUST ONE OF MINE. DOES THAT SOUND FAIR? WHO DOES HE CARE WHO FINANCED THE TEST. I TOLD HIM HE COULD PICK THE COMPANY HE WANTED THE TEST TO BE DONE. HIS CHOICE AND NO COST TO HIM. AGAIN BOBO I WOULD NOT BE ASKING THE QUESTIONS A PROFESSIONAL FROM THE COMPANY YOU CHOSE WOULD HAVE DONE SO. SLAGER REFUSED TO TAKE THE TEST EVEN BEFORE HE USED THE DIABETES EXCUSE, THAT MY FRIENDS SHOWS THAT HE IS A LIAR ABOUT THE STORY. THAT IS BUGUS, I MEAN BOGUS
Offline
#24 2009-11-15 19:26:05
Call me crazy, but just the fact that Slager is coming up with a littany of reasons he would fail the test, or doesn't want to take the test, only suggests he has something to hide.
But that's just commonsense
Offline
#25 2009-11-15 20:46:56
Bahhhhh ha ha ha ha! "The Diabetes Defense." Oh my God, I love it. He just throws that damn diabetes out to get out of anything. "Waahhh, I have diabetes. Waaaah."
"Nice try." Bahhhh ha ha ha!
Oh my God, I gave him way too much credit. And here I thought he was such a consumate liar that he could pass a lie detector test, yet he whips out the diabetes because he'd crack on a lie detector test. What a whiney bitch.
Hey, does diabetes cause your brain to not be able to tell fact from fiction? Because maybe the last couple of weeks, Bobo just scarfed down too many hot fudge sundaes in the bathroom office...
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-11-15 21:02:13)
Offline
