It will be fun trying to convert them from the dark side. Unlike the rag we should welcome opposing views.

I try to follow this without paying to read Mr. Slager's version of The Wareham Observer. Aside from not being able to read his complete articles with their comments, I have no way to parse out the absolute truth aside from talking to friends in Wareham with first hand experience.

I asked before - but could someone just pay for the site and make it their project to summarize (not copy) what he writes there and what his posters have to say. I have other things to do or I'd do it.

I expect that there are those who lurk, but unlike me, never registered and never post, who would like you to put on more facts - with how you verified them - along with your opinions.

Librarians considering applying for the director position are a case in point.

We consider Wareham to be our main choice of a community to move to if and when we move. Like I wrote on another thread, we like everything about it except the politics. We want to see it cleaned up and want to feel confident that it has before we move there.

HOORAY HOORAY , HOORAY HOORAY, , DO YOU SUPORT THE STATMENTS OF CRONAN WHO CALLED 2 OF OUR EMPLOYEES DIRTY RATS , SLAGER CRITIZES EVERY BODY WITH A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW , GIVE ME A BREAK , I SAY HOORAY WHEN YOU MOVE TO SOUTH CAROLINA.

hoorayforAUDITS wrote:

"It will be fun trying to convert them from the dark side. Unlike the rag we should welcome opposing views."

you do realize what you said? you just said the rag does allow diverse opinions and that you should which means you don't now.

Where do you get that interpretation?  There are two clauses not separated by a comma.  Unlike the rag [implied: who does not welcome opposing views], we should welcome opposing views?????
We should welcome opposing views is an opinion.  It can be interpreted to mean we do offer opposing views and should continue to do so?????
I can't see anything in that sentence to mean that the rag offers opposing views.....

VERB:  Should  shud:  ...
3.  Expresses that something is likely
      "they should be finished by now"

Good response, commonsense. Another favorite expression of mine has been proven true more times than I care to admit.."None of us are as smart as all of us."

Another point - I don't know which thread to put it on - but it occurs to me that there's no way Mr. Slager can cover all the news he puts on his website by himself, or even with one additional reporter.

I question articles such as the one about the Wareham resident, Sean Pierce, being stabbed in New Bedford. My hunch is that he got that story from other media and simply paraphrased it. If so it isn't an original story and I believe journalistic standard would dictate he credit where he got it.

The same for the possible drowning at Dummy Bridge where he writes "According to Acting Police Chief Irving Wallace, a person kayaking in the East River heard a splash, presumably from someone who had jumped off the bridge." Did he interview Wallace? It sure sounds like he did. If he didn't he should credit the paper that did interview him.

This is important stuff. If he claims to be a journalist he can't use the work of other journalist without giving them credit.

He might as well just put RSS feeds to The Standard Times and other papers on his online version.

urneighbor,

In regards to the Observer's on line chat, those I have participated in do not have anyone posting with what you would refer to as an opposing viewpoint...why I'd love it if some of you would participate...$2 is not going to make or break the paper's financial situation...and there is no reason for anyone to know who you are...sign up using an email that doesn't consist of your full legal name and pay with a paypal account...

I'm not speaking for Mr. Slager but I don't think he's opposed to anonymous bloggers unless they are guilty of personally attacking someone behind a screen name...and if you're not saying personally nasty things about someone, why would you be referred to as a hate blogger?

Right on Mixie. We have ALL been called hate bloggers on this site. What is the definition?

This site often contains complaints, satire, factual evidence, personal accounts etc. The actual "hateful" stuff, if by that is meant using expletives and saying some really nasty things about other people constitutes a very small overall percentage of postings. If you don't think that is right, spend some time reading through the postings. I'd say something like 90% vs. 10% with the 10 being nasty.

Speaking out against others---sharing your opinions---is protected speech. That has not changed just because a few people have had their feelings hurt. And some of the greatest social/political changes this country has seen have occurred because people spoke out against the injustices they recognized.

Again---we have all been called hate bloggers. Talk about stereotyping---ascribing characteristics to a whole group based on the behavior of a few. Welcome to the Wareham of 2009.