Well, here is my "self interest."

I want to TAKE BACK WAREHAM so that it will be the town that I moved to many years ago. Call me selfish if you want, but this town ran very well in the past but since this bos came into power we have had more problems and embarrassing incidents than you can count. We have lost good employees and are having a hard time finding good employees to hire to fill vacancies. We have suffered a humiliating town wide, expensive computer audit instead of going after a couple of possible suspects in wrong doing making the morale in every department lower than dirt.

Corruption is a pretty serious charge. corruptness: lack of integrity or honesty (especially susceptibility to bribery); use of a position of trust for dishonest gain

I just don't see that you can say so many people are corrupt. Dishonest gain? What kind of evidence will they bring forward? I guess we wait and see.


Define power elite:A power elite, in political and sociological theory, is a small group of people who control a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, and access to decision-making of global consequence. The term was coined by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 book,

Huh? The only small group who has access to decision-making in this burg is the bos. Enough said.

Neighbor--can you see why it is not worth reading the rag? What you have written above is pure crap. It's not worth the fish wrap it's written on. It belongs in the trash which is just my opinion shared by many people in W.

In my opinion Urneihbor, When Mr. Slager first started reffering to the power elite, it was a small group of 20 or so people that supported certain members of the former BOS. Some of those names you will find on the currrent CBW board. However Mr. Slager now uses Power Elite, CBW, and "Hate Bloggers" as broadbased generlizations for anyone who has the oddasity to stand up for themselves and speak out against this current Board. This to me has always been unfair because it is simply not true. Many of the people that Mr. Slager now reffers to are people who are not "Power Elite" but people who have been effected by the actions of the current B.O.S., are tired of it, and refuse to take it anymore.

If and when we move to Wareham neither of us will be members of any "power elite", that's for sure.

As much as I try to be objective and give Slager the benefit of the doubt, I find more clarity here because it is easy to separate the angry posts tossed off in a few seconds from those that are well thought out and filled with facts and reasonable questions.

Slager is trying to be a reporter and editorial writer at the same time and the result is that his publication is often a mishmash.

Still, as I posted sarcastically of another thread, he comes across as the Teriq Aziz for the Saddamites, i.e., the ITA, Crime Watch director and the BOS.

His latest piece is the first time I've seen that he admitted the BOS had shortcomings:

Selectmen have made more than their share of bonehead statements during meetings. They have sometimes responded with anger to the relentless pounding they have endured. They have been too dismissive of other viewpoints at times. They haven’t always been publicly forthcoming with information.

Is this too little too late? Given that there are videos posted here showing the chair of the board acting like a dictator he might have thought he had to write this to maintain some credibility.

Last edited by urneighbor (2009-07-25 08:11:20)

I heard the famous six minute tape about the audits in their executive session.

Once that came out I saw how they tried to hide the content of what they said by their outrage at cable TV for broadcasting it live, and the S-T for putting it online, and trying to say there was a conspiracy.

(I thought so what if it was a conspiracy it didn't change what was said.)

What was said pretty clearly was that the reason for the audit had little if anything to do with tax assessments and everything to do with trying to nail bloggers for using work computers.

That alone in some other towns would have led to resignations and possibly legal action.

urneighbor wrote:

the power elite will do everything within its power to bring down the government in Wareham.

I'm not exactly sure who the power elite is, but I would consider the current BOS the power elite because they and a select few benefit from their decisions.

Most of them (the bloggers) are past and present police officers, town officials, library lobbyists and others who have a personal stake in the selectmen’s investigation into corruption in Town Hall and beyond.

I don't have a stake in the witch hunt by the Selectmen. I will have a stake in the next investigation of the Selectmen.

The results of the town’s computer audit should be made public in a few more weeks. The deadline for summary judgment in the lawsuit against the former board of library trustees is quickly approaching. It’s starting to slip away from them, and they know it.

How can an audit looking for bloggers and the library getting a settlement have anything to do with the grassroots effort to get rid of the Selectmen? They will still be rude and unprofessional, corrupt,  and poor managers. In effect, it's starting to slip away from them.

   

The only way to end the division in Wareham is to finally reveal the level of corruption that has choked this town for decades.

Right, and after decades of success, this group of Selectmen continue to run a huge deficit, make poor hiring decisions to replace seasoned employees who either stood up to them or resigned, and make decisions favoring their "power elite".

But they (The current BOS) have never wavered from their commitment to changing Wareham for the better. I have never seen any indication that anyone on the board has acted with premeditated malice. Despite what they may lack in political grace I have always believed they have the best interest of Wareham at heart.

I have a prime example of premeditated malice. 6 minutes of the taped executive session.

They (the bloggers here) stay in the shadows because if the level of their self-interest were exposed they would quickly lose the propaganda war and they know it.

Actually, our "self interest" is a better Wareham and it's been exposed. I'm not sure about the shadows, I tend to think we are out in the bright light. He does admit to slinging propaganda with his comment about a propaganda war. You can't have a war without two participants!

The only way the wounds of Wareham will heal is when people learn to stop being afraid of these bullies.

A perfect quote! The Selectmen are bullies. I have the emails to prove it. Slager is trying to bully people into believing the Selectmen are working for us. Anyone else think the Selectmen are working to control spending, hire qualified candidates, and preach employee retention?

Who are exactly are the power elite?

Well, you are now, just by posting here.  But in the beginning it was people with long linages or political careers in Wareham; Decas, Pillsbury, Brady, etc....

The (6 PM) meeting was posted last week. The Observer wrote about it on Monday.

Simple answer needed.

Even I'm confused on that one.  Since when did The Rag posting the meeting count?  I thought it was to be Town Hall AND the internet?  Is that not what was voted on at the last town meeting?
   

Is he saying that police, town officials and library people are corrupt? What corruption is alleged? What personal stake?

That's what he's saying.  And I'm sure the "corruption" will be what THEY see as corruption, not what competent and intelligent people would see it as.  "the audit reveals this employee checked their e-mail five times on Monday, when they should have been working..."

Joyce was order to pay us more than $20,000 in attorney fees and court costs. We haven’t seen a penny of it.

Last I heard, and I think BoBo reported this, Joyce was appealing the amount.

The results of the town’s computer audit should be made public in a few more weeks. The deadline for summary judgment in the lawsuit against the former board of library trustees is quickly approaching. It’s starting to slip away from them, and they know it.

How many times do we have to hear this?  Points to remember:  They were looking for something specific.  It simply could not wait until next fiscal year.  They have all the hard drives, so nothing can be altered.

Taking all that into consideration, why are there no results yet?  If these employees are so corrupt and problems for the Town, why are they STILL working here two months later?!  They couldn't find the bloggers, so they are screwed.

I'm sure they will try to hurt someone, to try and justify the witch-hunt.
   

The only way to end the division in Wareham is to finally reveal the level of corruption that has choked this town for decades.

Yeah, maybe they should DEFINE corruption, because they never have.  They throw that out there to prey on the unintelligent.

But they (The current BOS) have never wavered from their commitment to changing Wareham for the better. I have never seen any indication that anyone on the board has acted with premeditated malice. Despite what they may lack in political grace I have always believed they have the best interest of Wareham at heart.

Hey if anyone can find a way they changed Wareham for the better, please fill me in!  Remember this, The BOS stories are always changing, so are bobos... the news and information here is consistant and similar.  Guess which one is tellign the truth?

They (the bloggers here) stay in the shadows because if the level of their self-interest were exposed they would quickly lose the propaganda war and they know it.

Bobo thinks the "power elite" are the bloggers.  I guess if you mean exposing the board for what they are and all there lies, that would be my self-interest.  I have zero to gain personally.  The Town would benefit though.

The only way the wounds of Wareham will heal is when people learn to stop being afraid of these bullies.

I think he's referring to BOS, bloggers, and CBW...

MsLilly, it's too early in the morning for vodka, put it down and go do something other than kiss Bobo's ass today.  It's called free speech, and you and your cronies aren't the only ones to have it.

OMG Ham...I had that written..."and no I haven't hit the booze this early..." , but decided I didn't want to attempt to add humor to a very serious subject, so I removed it....thanks for allowing me the laugh anyway!!! 

And yes, it is free speech...we are ALL entitled to it...but I don't think it entitles someone to encourage the boycott of someone's business because you don't like or agree with what is being said...

MsLilly wrote:

but I don't think it entitles someone to encourage the boycott of someone's business because you don't like or agree with what is being said...

How long ago was that?  Two years ago.  Also, a right people have as free Americans.  I don't by the group of people yelling at the advertiser.  He has never reported that before.

Although your buddy likes to call for boycotts indirectly when he says, "please don't boycott Community Mini Storage or Wareham Courier, blah blah blah.  Like hundreds of people were suggesting it to him in the first place.  Please!

How long ago was the boycott?  A year ago?  And he and his flunkies are still worried about it?  Most not be too many pennies in the ole Rag budget.

Ms Lilly, you stupid drunk, everyone knows that in any case the deceased's family writes the obituary, you think her family put negativity into her obituary?  Your buddy has openly admitted to doing it and that he was proud of it and would do it again.  Go suck down some more vodka you alcoholic dumbass.

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-07-25 10:21:15)

Ok thanks Ms Lilly.  Ragman sits up at nights worried that everytime a blogger says the word "boycott" he might lose business.  Good to know.


BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT!

Ok thanks for the intel, go drink yourself into a stupor now just like Papa Ragman.

MsLilly wrote:

IHATESLAGER wrote:

PUTTING THAT SOMEONE WAS SUED IN AN OBITUARY. THATS NOT HATE IS IT????? HAVE YOU EVER SEEN THAT IN ANYONES OBITUARY ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD?

Ham, when I stated that Mr. Slager did not write the obituary, the above quote was what I was referring to....

now pass the vodka...

Hamatron5000 wrote:

Ok thanks Ms Lilly.  Ragman sits up at nights worried that everytime a blogger says the word "boycott" he might lose business.  Good to know.


BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT, BOYCOTT!

Ok thanks for the intel, go drink yourself into a stupor now just like Papa Ragman.

Unfortunately, you have missed the point of my original post...my comment was directed who or who may not be hatebloggers on this site...I believe encouraging a boycott is a hateful way to try to encourage the demise of someone's business because you do not like or agree with what a person says...I was not arguing the merit of someone who attempts to do that, just that before you start pointing your finger at everyone else around you as hatebloggers except for yourself, it is time someone suggests that person might want to "look in the mirror" first...see how helpful those Michael Jackson discussions can be?

Boycotting local businesses is extreme. It hurts small businesses which have no cheap alternative for targeted advertising.

Too bad for them since I doubt the ads are very effective.

Molly wrote:

MsLilly wrote:

And I am not referring to a boycott from last year...I am referring to the one that is encouraged by a particular blogger in every other post they submit on this site...

You are right Leie, I mean Ms. Lilly. I have been telling people NOT TO READ THAT PIECE OF SHIT. I have not been advocating a boycott of his advertisers which is the previous boycott that did have an effect.

Boycotts are a political method to achieve an end. Take a look at the historical boycotts--including dumping tea in Boston harbor, and not riding on the back of buses. I am not ashamed of telling people to let the rag die and I will not stop doing so.

Your blind loyalty, in my opinion, is pathetic. And we all have a right to share our opinions.

It's just like any thing else---you don't like it, don't look at it. You don't like what we say here--don't bother to come back.

You are entirely correct Molly, except for the reference to Leie and that when you encourage people "not to read that piece of shit", you're are not advocating a boycott...perhaps that is where the confusion lies when you accuse others around you of being a hateblogger and not yourself...sure, encourage your boycott...just don't skip yourself when pointing your finger at hateful...oh yeah, another exception....the Boston Tea Party did not take place because we did not like what the British said, and I have no idea what riding in the back of a bus has to do with anything being discussed but okay...like I said before, you are entitled to say anything you like...we all are...and it is definitely your choice if you prefer it to be hateful in nature or not...

When something is utterly distasteful for whatever reason, we have the right to avoid it and to tell others to do so as well.

Here are some analogies--used in intelligent debate as examples of similar instances--to clarify my previous use of some of these examples.

The government tells people not to buy cigarettes because it is harmful to your health--is that not a boycott? Do we have fewer smokers in this country and less lung cancer? Can you go to a restaurant and eat without being smoked out?

Bostonians boycotted British tea because they did not like the government--does that sound familiar? Are we still under British rule? Most would consider that a good thing. Hear ye, hear ye excluded of course bbrady.

People boycotted white only establishments because they believed others were being treated unfairly--most people agree with the end result. We now have discrimination laws for all sorts of people--the disabled, elderly--I believe it's called civil rights.

Calling for people to do or not do something so that the end result will be better is not hateful. It is intelligent. And it will never stop in a free society. Of course, those on the receiving end will cry foul, but that does not mean a boycott is wrong. Even if it means that someone's income is lost--don't make me laugh as ragboy has said he doesn't make a penny---so what will he lose?

I am not ashamed to look in a mirror. I believe this blog has opened the eyes of many people. If ragboy has been able to spew his lies and libel for years, we have the right to tell the truth on this blog. Simple as that.

Last edited by Molly (2009-07-25 11:39:25)

Molly wrote:

The government tells people not to buy cigarettes because it is harmful to your health--is that not a boycott? Do we have fewer smokers in this country and less lung cancer? Can you go to a restaurant and eat without being smoked out?

Bostonians boycotted British tea because they did not like the government--does that sound familiar? Are we still under British rule? Most would consider that a good thing. Hear ye, hear ye excluded of course bbrady.

People boycotted white only establishments because they believed others were being treated unfairly--most people agree with the end result. We now have discrimination laws for all sorts of people--the disabled, elderly--I believe it's called civil rights.

Please explain to me again how any of the above mentioned movements are based on not liking or agreeing with what someone says?  And I did not suggest that you should be ashamed when you look in the mirror, but rather that you probably shouldn't be envisioning yourself perch high above all the supposed hatebloggers at this site, unless of course, you are trying to set yourself apart from those who USUALLY don't choose to use such hateful methods to try and get their point across...

That "usually" is meant to be self-inflicted...

SLAGER IS THE ONLY WRITER OF THE PAPER! SLAGER IS THE ONLY ONE WHO HAS THAT MUCH HATRED. IT WAS IN THE OBITURY NOT A COLUMN ABOUT HER PASSING. I HAVE A COPY ! GO BACK TO THE OTHER SITE

One more time since my plain English is creating problems for some---a boycott, for whatever reasons is still a boycott. I've never heard of boycotts being categorized by type--against actions or words. The earlier analogies are based on the concept of a boycott, not on the fact that ragboy "says" something.

By ragboy saying something, such as lies and libel, he is helping to destroy this town. He prints the garbage too. And he passes it around for free except for the poor suckers who pay for it. I don't think my analogies are too subtle for the basic reader to understand.

By advocating NOT TO READ THAT PIECE OF SHIT I would expect such a "boycott" to work in the same way. Much good will come to Wareham when the rag is gone.

Simple enough?

And when you think about it taxation without representation is quite a bit like ragboy's words without evidence. Neither are fair.

Now if I were to compare lung cancer causing cigarette boycotts to boycotting the malignant growth on Wareham that is your hero, the ragboy, well that would be hateful, so I won't do that.

MsLilly...  the definition of boycott is " to abstain from buying or using as an expression of protest or disfavor."  Are you saying, we shouldn't be allowed to boycott a buisness when we disagree with their politics or ethics or in Bobo's case constant misinformation or out right lies. He has put himself in the public eye to be praised or attacked for his views. Every newspaper in the country has letters to the editor in which the public can express their views either positive or negative. They don't whine when people think they or wrong or stop buying their paper. They back up their articles with FACTS and if they are wrong they print a retraction. I don't think Bobo has the balls to print any opposing views like most REAL newspapers. There are a lot of buisness in trouble right now they don't whine and blame others, they suck it up and adjust and find out what the public wants so they can succeed. Maybe if Bobo's paper didn't constantly misrepresent the truth more people would buy his paper.

If any of you participate in the forums on Amazon.com, have you noticed that MsLilly exhibits most, if not all, of the traits of a 'troll'?

Under the guise of soliciting and/or presenting 'new' viewpoints, a 'troll' merely interjects a contrarian or opposing dialogue, typically intended to cause 'thread drift' and take the conversation off target.  The recent interchange on another thread between MsLilly and Larry McDonald is a case in point, where MsLilly introduced the notion of child abuse, when up to that posting there had been no suggestion of that being one of Larry's concerns.

There is just enough 'common sense' scattered among MsLilly's dialogue to cleverly mask the 'troll-like' pattern.  I have not noticed very many, if any, times that MsLilly has presented any new FACTS or EVIDENCE to truly advance our collective knowledge and understanding of the topic at hand.

This is merely my humble opinion, expressed under my rights to free speech (but does anyone else see a similar pattern to MsLilly's posts???).

Ms Lilly,
First, no need to apologize, we both know where we stand on issues. If you are for responsible government, then you cannot be for the current slate of selectmen. They do not respresent anything I would consider responsible. Their time is running out (for some of them) and all the propaganda Mr. Slager writes will not change that. He can attempt character assasination on however many people he wants, he still on his way out.

This meeting is for the citizens of Wareham that are not happy with the way things are going. He has requested NO PRESS, and it is a private meeting, not an open meeting. Mr. Slager is not a resident of Wareham (unless you count the nights he spends in his office) and he happy with the way things are. He is also against all those who oppose the Selectmen.

Also, without press and "bullies" there, people can openly express their feelings and chart a course for taking back Wareham. If press is allowed, those that fear retribution would not speak openly. You understand that concept, I'm sure. Please don't tell me how Slager would respect that, he has proven he does not. His latest article is a tribute to where he stands.

So, with all that in mind, you may choose to attend because you want responsible government and are NOT happy with how things are.

My personal feelings are that I don't have anything to say at that meeting that I wouldn't say to the Selectmen (If Mr. Sauvageau didn't OWN the agenda and dictate what I can talk about).


For the record, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE SELECTMEN and I DO NOT AGREE WITH ROBERT SLAGER on his right to attend.

Last edited by Larry McDonald (2009-07-25 19:11:27)

The PRESS is one thing, barring the press is not an issue with me. Because no matter which press person it is, they are going to report their slant on the meeting.

When it comes to citizens of the Town with like or similar opinions....there you have crossed the line. If recent elections are any indicator the majority of VOTERS either do not know your positions or they disagree. I beleive they don't know your positions to improve the town.

How can I say this? Because I WAS ONE OF THEM!!!!

Up until a few months ago I did not even know this site existed. My only information came from the paper and neighbors. I have learned alot since joining this site. But not because I simply beleive everything posted. I now have an opportunity to hear both sides, and usually the real answer is somewhere in the mioddle.

So if you TRULY want to improve the direction of the Town, and care what your fellow citizens think, then you will back off not welcoming all town citizens.

When I spoke with Mr Brady this week, he seemed welcoming to ALL FOLKS except the press coming to learn what the issues were and begin a discussion on improving the Town.

If you want to keep up the threats against regular people and scare them away from attending, and getting information,  don't blame Slager,  just keep losing elections.

Searay, a person who attends because he or she wants to find out what is going on, is totally different from people who are anti-power elite--whatever that means, anti-blogger, anti---us and pro-bos, pro ITA, pro-ragboy and pro-status quo, if you get my point. That is what I meant by it is not a debate.

I'm glad you have been enlightened and I hope people on the fence will come to the meeting to learn the facts.

The meeting will hopefully lead to some improvement in the way we are being governed and the way this town has deteriorated in the past few years. Sure, every town is hit with fiscal problems so there is no finger pointing there, but some of the issues such as wasting money on lawsuits, the locking of swift's beach, the condition of a town road-Maple Springs, the lack of transparency--executive sessions especially, the wasting of money on a computer audit, the loss of town employees, the disregard for the opinion of any citizen not in the sacred bos club, etc. etc. These are facts. We don't need to debate them--we need to do something about them.

Saying we are looking for people of similar opinions means we are looking for people tired of the way things have been going in Wareham. That's all we are saying.  The ad in the paper clearly explains that also.

Last edited by Molly (2009-07-25 19:11:25)

Searay,
I can understand the confusion. I look forward to meeting some of the people that blog here. It will certainly be nice to put faces with names. I am pretty sure I will be easy to spot :)

slager and ms lilly i have read your artical and posts  and i have an answer for  the both of you , you both are full of shit,