#1 2009-04-05 13:14:42
The latest postings prompted me to read the rantings and ravings by Slager on the Courier site. Here are some fine examples:
"I didn't realize that anyone who holds a contrary viewpoint to yours (another blogger) is not allowed to air it." And "Your viewpoint is apparently the only one that matters." Also, "Most people believe everyone should have the right to voice their opinion and not be bullied because of it."
Oh really? Anyone who stands up at town meeting or belongs to CBW, or is a library trustee or Friend, a town department head, a town police officer, or in any way speaks against the current BOS/Slager viewpoint is bullied or ridiculed because of it. We have been accused of not wanting public safety, not being concerned about the elderly, or the Cape Verdeans. We have been accused of not wanting clean water, or of caring more about the library than anything or anyone else in town. Just because we voiced our own opinions.
Why do so many people on this site speak so badly about Slager? Because most of us have been called liars, selfish, stupid etc. who hate our town in one of his rag editions. This from someone who doesn't even live here! Our opinions have been twisted. Slager has printed false information and used wrong numbers when stating "facts." How many times have people written in to "correct" his "facts"???? Too many to count. He never contacts people involved in his "stories" for the facts. I know since I am a person he should have contacted on more than one occasion.
Oh, and since we are talking about the Courier site on the taking of Swift's Beach: The important question that should have been asked was WHO BROUGHT THE IDEA OF TAKING SWIFT'S BEACH TO THE ATTENTION OF THE SELECTMEN? You got it--Bruce did. I was told this by more than one of the other four selectmen involved in the case. They also told me that Bruce had never told them about his past history with the owner of the property. And Slager doesn't seem to see a problem with this? And he doesn't have a problem with Jane Donahue saying that if we use the $1.1 million of CPC money to get rid of the debacle it was illegal but we should do it anyway? And didn't Slager then say that Chief Joyce was a bad dept. head for not voting for the illegal act since it could mean some of his dept. people could lose their jobs?? Oh my head. I could go on, but I need some tylenol.
Offline
#2 2009-04-05 16:10:49
Brucey did not abstain. They're hammering Ragman on the Courier site good. It is true - the former BOS members, the public, the town meeting voters, nobody learned about Bruce's failed efforts to buy the property himself until after the taking went through. If that isn't evidence of wrongdoing, I don't know what is. Ragman says Bruce abstained. They're asking why didn't he explain why he abstained then? The answer is, because HE DIDNT ABSTAIN!
Are we really supposed to believe that Bruce said "Ok my fellow selectmen, I'm going to abstain from this, but I'm not telling you why!" and that would not have turned a head or two?
I guess this is a lost cause. It's not surprising that Ragman would bury his head in the sand on this, it's a little sadder when the rest of the press and the public do too.
But Ragman won't touch the "If you are right and Brucey abstained, why didn't he explain to the BOS and the public at that time?" question with a ten foot pole.
Check the tapes - there was never a moment where Bruce stood up and say "Hey folks, I tried to buy this lot so I'd have some more spaces for my Failed Pizza Parlor, so I'm going to sit this one out."
No, that's a question Ragman won't touch with a hundred foot pole.
Offline
#3 2009-04-05 17:14:55
for the life of me i cant find the postings on the courier site what is the topic
Offline
#4 2009-04-05 17:40:49
Oneear, I'm sorry, Twoear -
Check under David Smith's Editorial - "Not So Newcomers."
I don't get why people waste time with newspaper blog sites anymore, but to each their own. The more info that gets out to the people the better. It's a barrel of monkeys to watch the Ragman get all angry though. I can picture him at the computer with smoke coming out his ears.
Yes, as was said earlier, they are too polite. Debating a lunatic like the Ragman is useless. If you see a nutjob walking up and down the street ringing a bell wearing a sandwich board sign that says "The End of the World is near!" Are you going to try to debate him that the end of the world isn't near, or do you just say "get out of my way dumbass."
Same thing. All you Courier bloggers, please, stop debating the Ragman and just tell him to stick his head where the sun don't shine. Maybe he'll find the missing minutes up there. Oh wait, there's no room for them there, that's where he keeps all his ideas on how to run the town.
Offline
#5 2009-04-05 19:12:22
Sorry, coming in late on this one, I didn't know I was supposed to be watching the blogs all weekend to jump on other people's posts. Did anyone else notice that? Who really has time all weekend to sit around and post hour after hour day after day? Just asking a question here, not implying that someone is all alone or something similar.
Speaking of family, how many people think that mrs ragman knows that the slobservers big advertiser is a soft-core adult bar? I'd be wondering how much time he spends picking up ads if I were her or if he's getting anything in trade.
Last edited by flox (2009-04-05 19:12:58)
Offline
#6 2009-04-05 21:00:13
Sometimes I wonder if I don't give Brucey enough credit. Anyone who has a "reporter" so wrapped around his finger that the reporter would spend his ENTIRE weekend defending Brucey on ANOTHER paper's blog site is truly a force to be reckoned with.
Offline
