#1 2009-07-26 12:19:15
Last week I posted that Mr Slager actually did a good job at proving the Selectmen and ITA lied when asked about Crimewatch. I thought this might be a changing tide in their editorial practice....however then I red this:
This was reported on Observer Media's website and is part of an email sent from Slager to Steve Urbon about Urbon's story.
“I just wanted to bring to your attention some factual inaccuracies in your story today.
He goes on to say:
“You also note that several Onset residents who attended the meeting left after learning the issue regarding Crime Watch would not be discussed in open session. I was present at the meeting (arriving 20 minutes early) and have watched a tape of it up until the point the meeting began and when you left at 7:23 p.m. The only people who left the meeting during that time were two women who live on Roby Drive in Wareham. They spoke during Citizen's Participation about no-parking signs in their neighborhood. I would be happy to make a copy of the tape and send it to you.
Not even close to the truth Mr Slager. I was there prior to 7pm, and was standing at the stairwell on the parking lot side. Many of the folks waiting had no clue what was going on in that room, some had come to the meeting to find out the latest info on the Crimewatch issue, only to find the room was in lockout and the Crimewatch folks and a lawyer were meeting in Executive session with the board. I beleive Mr Urbon to be reporting on the people that were pretty upset that there was an Executive session, walked past us at the stairwell and went home (or wherever they were going) and did not return to the meeting.
Second fact: There were three ladies in front of me 2 of ehich spoke about the parking issue, one did not, all three left the meeting, as did a yopung lady sitting next to me, a man and woman sitting next to them, and an older gentleman sitting next to them, I saw others along the back wall leave as well.
I viewed a replay of the BOS meeting, so please provide your tape to Mr Urbon because your facts are just not correct....stay tuned
Offline
#2 2009-07-26 12:30:05
Part 2
Facts are a funny thing:
As reported byObserver Media in the same email to Mr Urbon.
“The issue of Crime Watch was, in fact, discussed in open session later in the meeting.
Again at this point I have not seen any evidence of this on the replay of the meeting. If Observer Media is referring to the Chairman's comments at the end of the meeting, then report it correctly, IT WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO A DISCUSION. The Chairman in the Selectmen Comment Section, stated that he wanted to comment that Crime Watch met with the BOS in ES earlier, something about their legal issues, they will continue, and he understands what Coleman is going through having been in his shoes inthe past. And his trademark in the end we will see what we see. That is not a discussion, no one was allowed to speak during this portion of the meeting, and the other Selectmen and ITA remained silent.
We all assumed or at least I did, given the answers from the Board in regards to Crimewatch's liabiltiy that the Town had no legal issues to discuss with them, so given the Chairmans comments about legal issues discussed I thought the Lawyer was their representative as well.
Given the Board lied to us "according to Obsverber media's report that the Town added all crimewatch folks to our Liability Certificate and that their legal representaion comes from Copeland & Page.
So if you reported that Chairman made comments about Crimewatch that would be correct, reporting that there was discussion (and I'm sure someone from this site will help with the definition of "discussion) is in fact "not a fact"
Offline
#3 2009-07-26 12:45:04
And finally....for now Part 3
Slager writes:
This is insane now. The Standard-Times knowingly wrote an editorial based on lies simply to propel the recall effort of the Citizens for a Better Wareham. I’ve been a professional journalist for nearly 25 years. I have never seen anything like this. The truth no longer matters. It’s outright warfare now.
This is quite a charge, and given the facts, and your recent threats against suit to others, you may be on the other end of that suit issue.
I have spoken with Mr Brady, who I beleive is onj the Board of CBW, and tells me the upcoming meeting is not about a recall. So again facts are a funny thin I guess this one will have to wait until Thursday.
You are correct in admitting the truth no longer matters and this is warfare, but again it takes two to have a war, and you are contributing to the batlles as well, so please don't stop the whining when you are guilty of the same.
More to the story as it develops
Offline
#4 2009-07-26 13:25:15
I have said this many times, and I guess one more time won't make a difference. Slager is a cub reporter and a shill for the selectmen. He doesn't do research, he relies on hearsay and fills in with anonymous sources that probably don't exist. His only purpose is to further the agenda of the Selectmen. He is not a legitimate newsman.
What you don't see Urbon do is attack Slager. He limits himself to newsworthy items. Slager reports on the reporter reporting (say that 3 times fast). He doesn't break the news, he just puts the Selectmen's spin on the news.
If you look at the circulation of the Standard times and the circulation of the FAKE observer, you already know where people go to get news. I doubt seriously Urbon or the management of the S_T would take the time to bother with Slager.
Offline
#5 2009-07-26 14:11:28
If anyone has something to lose by a shift in leadership, it would be bobo. I can't imagine that anyone will continue to pay for his online version when respectability is brought back to the BOS. Without sweet brucie and cronan brockton brenda and jane will be nothing more than a wimper.
Offline
#6 2009-07-26 14:58:13
Searay,
Would a definition from princeton be good enough?
Discussion: an exchange of views on some topic; "we had a good discussion";
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Note the words "exchange" and "we"
In my opinion--If sweet brucie was having a discussion with himself--exchanging views with one of the voices in his head?-- he should contact his psychiatrist as he clearly needs to get his meds adjusted.
On this blog---we often exchange views on the topic of ragoy's lies, libelous comments, fiction and baseless speculation--or to put it simply we have a discussion.
Offline
#7 2009-07-26 17:30:30
I have never met Slager. With all the pictures posted is there a recent picture of him?
A real one?
Offline
#8 2009-07-26 17:40:42
The pictures I posted were last week at Coleman's arraignment. Want an 8x10?
Offline
#9 2009-07-26 22:48:11
Thanks for the picture, I was looking for the guy on his website. Now that I know that here is part 4 of his article to Steve Urbon
Again Mr Slager the facts are a funny thing:
As reported by Slager in his letter to Urbon:
“You also note that several Onset residents who attended the meeting left after learning the issue regarding Crime Watch would not be discussed in open session. I was present at the meeting (arriving 20 minutes early) and have watched a tape of it up until the point the meeting began and when you left at 7:23 p.m. The only people who left the meeting during that time were two women who live on Roby Drive in Wareham. They spoke during Citizen's Participation about no-parking signs in their neighborhood. I would be happy to make a copy of the tape and send it to you.
I’ve been a professional journalist for nearly 25 years. I have never seen anything like this. The truth no longer matters. It’s outright warfare now.
You are at least sticking to your letter "the truth no longer matters"
According to my Verizon Phone Log, I arrived in the parking lot at 6:50pm on Tuesday night. I saw you getting out of your car, heading toward the building then back to your car....sound familiar?? Do you want to rethink the (20 minutes early) comment??
Mr Urbon at the time the meeting started was with the Crimewatch folks getting his interview.
Want to rethink the 7:23 comment??
One thing you wrote is a fact at least for you...."the truth no longer matters" The "fact squad is watching" and soon will be publishing !!!!
The : I’ve been a professional journalist for nearly 25 years. comment: The 25 years must have ended before you started writing in Wareham.
I hope you find it again
Please send the tape, I'm sure the Standard Times would love to put a link to it in their next article. If you are so sure you have the facts then you should have no problems sending the tape. We will look forward to seeing it on their site. Tapes don't lie....
Offline
#10 2009-07-26 23:00:45
Thanks for clearifying the truth, Searay. I think we need to get the truth out to the general public whenever the opportunity presents itself. For too long bobo has gotten away with printing whatever distortion he wants and calles it the truth. People need to hear the other side so that they can make educated decisions. There are those 8 - 11 who don't want the truth and good for them, they can keep their heads stuck in the sand and be a ragman groupie every sunday night.
Offline
#11 2009-07-27 06:54:05
Searay,
One thing I have learned when dealing with this bunch is the truth no longer matters. They are very good at attacking statements with contradiction, but when put to the test, they immediately cry they were attacked and that truth will prevail. Now, in the process of the truth prevailing, they change their story.
I'm not naive, I know partisan politics exist. But Slager is way too far up the Selectmen's butts for this to be a simple case of partisan politics. He is not just twisting the truth, he is publishing made up scripts. Care to take a stab at what might have caused him to throw away his career as a newsman and become the shill he is? There has to be something that made this happen.
Offline
#12 2009-07-27 07:42:30
Another small, perhaps not so small point.
I saw Slager and Officer Baptiste, in uniform, talking just outside the door at the arraignment and as noted in another post I asked the later a question.
What was a Wareham police officer in uniform doing there? Was he on duty and if so why was he assigned to be there?
I didn't notice a cruiser which doesn't mean he wasn't there as there are three parking areas.
Offline
#13 2009-07-27 10:33:29
Gee I wonder. I guess you'll have to put two and two together on that one.
Offline
#14 2009-07-27 10:42:29
commonsense wrote:
Gee I wonder. I guess you'll have to put two and two together on that one.
If Baptiste was there legitimately it would be for one of two reasons.
First, he was there because one of the people he arrested was being arraigned. That seems unlikely as I think in most cases all that's needed is the police report, not the officer(s) in person.
The other is that the acting chief ordered him to be there to provide security for Coleman.
If he was there on his own in uniform I wonder if the acting chief even knows about this.
Offline
