#1 2009-04-15 16:28:10
Slager has an article about last night and sites....
Massachusetts General Law, Chapter 39, Section B
There is no such chapter and section according to the State's database:
http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-39-toc.htm
But once again, why let the facts get in your way. Just believe whatever Brenda told you Bobby. I'm sure you both just left out a number. The only Chapter 39 Section that even has a "B" is Chapter 39, 23B
Last edited by commonsense (2009-04-15 17:18:59)
Offline
#2 2009-04-15 17:27:10
Glad you're a fan of the boards, and glad I can help edit your "paper" Bob.
Of course the chapter and section cited makes no mention of punishment or fine for said actions, making Bill's actions perfectly legal.
So is a picture a recording device? Kind of. Was only one picture taken during the actual meeting. Yes. Were most of the pictures taken during the suspension of the meeting. Yes.
Seems to me that if such a rule was "illegal" or "enforced" there would need to be something mentioned in the Town Charter or a Town By Law. You can't choose to whip out laws when it's convenient, you have to lay them out before hand.
if it were ANYONE else, there would not have been an issue.
And grow the hell up with the gun bullshit. You know he doesn't have one in his bag. For Christ's sake! His site is exposing you for what you are, and you can't take it.
One last thing, even if Bill left tomorrow, I have a feeling this site would live on in one form or another as long as the BOS are continuing their vendettas and lies.
Offline
#3 2009-04-15 21:30:04
Hey, I think Brenda & Bob needs a seein eye dog that bites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_7C0QGkiVo
I don't think Bill can ever leave ...
Offline
#4 2009-04-15 22:01:42
wag the dog wrote:
,
I don't think Bill can ever leave ...
I agree! Bill needs to stay and take his flashless camera to the next meeting and entertain us with pictures and the BOS dramatic reactions. Now that there is no chairperson to try to keep bruce and his behavior somewhat appropriate, things will really be out of control.
Geeze everyone talks about slagerk's appearance, but he is nothing compared to brucie's slovenly appearance.
Offline
#5 2009-04-16 01:21:24
What a load of crap.
This is what they always do. Disagree and they try to destroy you.
This "Bill might have a gun in his bag" is pure bullshit. Libelous. Something they made up to damage his reputation. Reporters carry bags to meetings all the time to carry notebooks, pens cameras and such. Bill is the only one who can't bring a bag to a meeting now? Bill appears to be an easygoing guy and the idea that he is "packin heat" is just pathetic.
Not surprising Ragman is doing his best to portray Bill as a monster, but in order to do that, the BOS had to make sure that the "tape got lost." Government controlled TV. Those of us who watched at home saw that Bill remained calm and collected the entire time. He was within his right to be there and take pictures. He stood his ground, but he wasn't rude about it. The BOS acted like asses, Bruce getting huffy and puffy and Brenda faking an eyeball attack.
I guess with a year of Chairman Brucey in charge, we'd all better be sure to hit the record button at home from now on. Just in case more tapes go missing.
Offline
#6 2009-04-17 00:55:51
This is my first post, and have read this blog for a while. I probably do not have as strong feelings for some of the people as many of you seem to. Maybe I could serve as your conscience. Yes, I think that would just work out fine. I do not know Mr. Slager, nor does he know me. I met one of the selectmen once, but have never spoken to the others. As a favor for the rookie, would one of you go to the other post that has the photos and identify the people for me. I am guessing the first photo, center is Robert Slager from the posts, but who are the others. I am not easily led, but I can be convinced with good argument, but never with just hurtful attacks.
Yep, if you people want to convince the citizens of Wareham you are the light, then you will probably need to come up with answers and be prepared to defend them. If you really want to influence town leaders, then do so, or become one. I have to laugh when someone refers to Brenda as "Brockton" Brenda. I guess we are to infer people from Brockton are not as high on the food chain as the shined upon people who blog here. Have you looked in the mirror? Consider this: 1) An independant person is tasked with "cleaning up" Wareham (maybe from Kopelman & Paige (ha ha)). 2 Their job is to evaluate everyone's "body of work" and relocate the 10% of the Wareham's citizenry who did the least to make it a better community. NOW -Would you be resting at home now or sitting at the bus station with a free ticket in your hand? It is quite likely the "judge" would not be swayed with such arguments as "you know how many hurtful names I called so and so, who will you get to do this?" or "I've blogged my hatred of more people in town than anyone else, the people need me!" No, to be sure,there are some trashy people in Brockton, but all you need to do is be able to read to know they do not have the market cornered.
Offline
#7 2009-04-17 01:45:43
hereitis wrote:
No, to be sure,there are some trashy people in Brockton, but all you need to do is be able to read to know they do not have the market cornered.
Get with the program, hereitis. Brockton/Wareham loathing dates to colonial times.
Goggle search the expression, "Brocton by the Sea". Wareham isn't the only town so maligned but Brockton "developers" did build most of our beach communities between 1905 and 1925. It's former residents are over represented on this site. Some of them somehow became terrific humans in spite of their tragic orgins.
The county's Brockton district attorney doesn't like us at all.
Hear Brockton Brenda, hereitis, and I defy you to claim you don't recognize the voice.
(Click the Link)
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Offline
#8 2009-04-17 08:12:13
here it is : you are completely entitled to your opinion. i am glad you have no idea who these people are yet you prompt others to get more involved.
you speak of personal attacks on people yet you must watch the televised public meetings of our town officials and see the personal attacks that stem from them.
yet a web site people intentionally visit is the problem?
i will leave that at that.
if you do decide to get involved let me know how you make out and if one of your family members is fired, maligned or otherwise effected by the powers that be or their media mouthpiece let me know and i will equip you with my new" GUIDE TO HATEBLOGGING WHEN LOGIC AND REASON NO LONGER WORK"
Offline
#9 2009-04-17 11:29:58
to oneeardog, you prove my point exactly. I used to do the same thing when I was in 3rd grade. If other kids didn't agree with you, you would walk away muttering hurtful things to them. I don't believe for one minute that someone in your family was ravaged like this and you did nothing other than call the offenders names. You seem smart enough that you would have prevailed with truth by exposing these louts. That is not the case, so I imagine you are really referring to someone elses family and you only know the side of the argument told to you by a grudgeholder, hence call them names and, God forbid, point out they're from Brockton. One of the primary lightnig rods seems to be the new BOS Chairperson. Truthfully, and I am sincerely asking, what do you know about him that makes him deserve your ire? Is he the cause or is he simply reacting to the other kids on recess? I was particularly amused with his run-in with the law over his arrest - what is up with that? Was it a legitimate thing or do you think the police may have been acting in bad faith?
Offline
#10 2009-04-17 12:03:34
hereitis wrote:
Was it a legitimate thing or do you think the police may have been acting in bad faith?
His license was suspended. It can be proven. The Police Chief went on record stating that. If you don't believe it, ask for his driving record under the "freedom of information act."
If there was any "bad faith" there would have been a full-blow investigate like the incident in Onset with the teenage girl. Do you wonder why that never happened?
Offline
#11 2009-04-17 12:07:18
Want the short answer? Bruce Sauvageau is an abusive bully with no fuse, clinically bipolar and a small time crook incapable of speaking the truth any time on any subject. Ask for a list of his crimes and expect to spend some time reading.
Offline
#12 2009-04-17 16:09:32
bill he doesnt want an answer or the truth. he believes that he/she already has the answer and only cares to point out our childish antics.
why are you here ?
how can you get the truth out when the board has its own media outlet and the other papers wont report it.
a couple have tried to stand up and tell the truth only to be fired dismissed and or ridiculed in the rag.
if you have a better idea let me know, otherwise for the moment this is all we have
Last edited by oneeardog (2009-04-17 16:10:06)
Offline
#13 2009-04-17 21:19:13
hereitis wrote:
Was it a legitimate thing or do you think the police may have been acting in bad faith?
A license is either suspended or it is not. It is a black and white issue. There is no gray area. The police cannot make it up as a reason to arrest someone. It is something that can easily be proven. If a cop were to intentionally arrest someone for having a suspended license when they knew the license was not suspended then they would find themselves in a world of trouble. No cop is going to take that chance with their career.
Last edited by TBL (2009-04-18 14:05:45)
Offline
