"Edited tape."  That's hilarious.  What, did the Power Elite hire someone from Saturday Night Live to do a Cronan impression and have him call town employees rats?

Ragman, your new site is adorable.  "Always free...no wait, please pay me, no wait, ok buy one for 75 cents at some places, or pick it up for free at other places, no no wait now you have to pay me 5 bucks a month to look at my website."

The great rabble rouser reduced to moderating a private online clubhouse for Bruce groupies.

Oh how the mighty have fallen...and fallen hard.  How long before he just sits in stairwells with a tin cup and offers to give his opinion to people for their pocket change?

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-06-13 13:32:00)

What happened? Did ragboy claim the tape was edited? Where did you see that? Does he say what/how it was edited? I listened a couple of times, and it seems like real time conversation to me. I can't imagine how it could have been edited. Caught with your pants down is caught with your pants down. Face it BOS. No spin can save this debacle. Not even from your little ragboy-toy.

I just love reading "fiction and baseless speculation." Pass his article along here if you can.

Molly, in the paper rag, he says the tape is edited and taken out of context - I don't know in what context "those are the two biggest rats that work for the town and I don't trust them as far as I can throw them and my back and neck are out so I can't throw them anywhere" is an ok thing to say.

Hey, if they can produce a longer tape that proves Cronan actually said something like, " 'Those two are the two biggest rats that work for the town and I don't trust them as far as I can throw them, and I can't throw them anywhere because my back is out and my neck is out....is what I'd say if I were a mean person, but really I love those guys and want to give them a big hug because I think they do a fantastic job'" then I'll eat crow.  That's about the only context where that'd be ok.

Just to point out, I re-read the paper Rag's article, and the Ragman (with help from an "anonymous source" of course) writes:

----------------------------------

"According to a source who said he listened to both the live broadcast and the edited version, the versions share some similarities but differ in several ways.

'I heard both versions, and I'll tell you straight up, they were different,' the source said.  'The new one is just pieces of what I heard the first time when it was live.  Some of it wasn't in the right order.  It sounded amateurish to me.  If Whitehouse has a copy of the original, he should play the entire tape on his web site.  It's easier to understand than this new one.'

Whitehouse did not returneD e-mails sent by the Observer.  (Probably because he doesn't waste his time with a retardeD)

We will update this story as more information becomes available.  (How, are you going to pick up the paper rags and write more under the article with a pen?  Ass.)"

---------------------------------------------------

So there you have it.  Ragman did not actually say the words "out of context" but he is using the "out of context" defense.  This "anonymous source" says the words are taken out of order - so the suggestion to the reader is if you listened to the tape in a different order, then what was said about town employees being rats and all the talk of sure let's spend tons of money to look for bloggers would sound perfectly reasonable.

In what way - or arrangement or  "context" could "those guys are rats I don't trust farther than I can throw" ok?  (Not that I buy for a minute that someone edited the tape to begin with). 

The out of context defense - used by Nixon above, used by most people when caught on tape saying something naughty.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-06-13 16:05:34)

Mr Slager is a desperate man. When I last read his paper he was running some sort of deal where he would give 10.00 to the town for the library.

He took a big chance and failed he signed up according to him 100 people.Maybe that was taken out of context he signed up 7 and kicked in the rest of the money out of the paper's account.Then shortly after that his partner quit.

Wonder what the real story is...maybe the BOS gave him the $$$

Interesting if you look at The Observer site there is a story where his pal Bruce reveals that he asked fellow BOS members during an Executive Session meeting if they would accept his resignation.

So Slager is OK with printing Exec Meeting info as long as it comes from his owners.

Last week he said his paper would never print or reveal any Exec meeting contents claiming legal and ethical rules of engagement.

He knows he can't compete with the S-T reporter,he knows he is really is out of his league and out classed. Maybe he should be reading his own previous editions before publishing new editions.

Until he gets his own story straight how can he continue to publish the weekly rag?

Simple answer is he can't he will be closing the Wareham edition soon.

I saw that too Searay and I didn't pick up on that either. Not only does that make Mr. Slager a liar but would that not now put Mr. Savengeau in an akward position as well. After all that would mean that he leaked confidential executive session information to a reporter prior to the matter being closed and prior to the Minutes from that executive session being approved. I think that in and of itself would be a major violation of Executive Session privilage. I smell another complaint to the AG coming.

One of you should go tyhe the site and do a screen print or copy and paste the screen,

I am on Blackberry not at my PC.

If he's monitoring this site he may be tempted to take it off, now that he has been caught. Also we could email the screem shot to DA and AG and let Bruce explain to them why he is leaking info from exec to a publisher of the rag.

Bruce will deny it and it will be fun to watch them two go at it.

His on-line folks will go down to 6

It's front page in the paper rag.