#1 2009-08-24 20:30:49
Well folks, I'm back from vacation for less than a day and I already have some responses to Slager's blog. Surprisingly, though, it's not from something Slager wrote. Today is my first deconstruction of one "Paul Shooter", he of the anonymous editorials. I'm going to ask, as always, that comments in this thread remain constructive, and if you want to vent about something, please do so in another discussion. Thanks!
It's interesting to see the progression of tone from "Shooter's" first "report" (the one that bears a very striking resemblance to Slager's writing style, but that Slager claims he only "edited") to his first "editorial" (where he lists all of the things he doesn't like about Slager) to this post. We'll have to wait and see what the future brings from Mr. "Shooter", but this smacks of being intentional to try to build up a reputation for being independent, so that when he rips people on the other side, he can say "but look, I said things about Rob too, so I'm unbiased". It's almost like the drug dealer that gives you the first hit for free, acts like your friend, then leaves you for dead in a pile of your own vomit while you try to remember to breathe. Oh well, onto the corrections!
First, "Shooter" starts by saying that he didn't like Slager using the term "power elite" to group people together "...because it was like throwing a big net out there and it didn’t matter who got caught in it. There are some good people that got dragged in with some bad people, and I didn’t like that very much. It wasn’t right." Then he proceeds to group us as "idiot bloggers", "idiot hate bloggers", "bozos", "clowns" who write "crap" and "are in the same family". Kind of a quick turnaround to the Slager kool-aid view of the world, no? Seems to have grouped an awful lot of people together in this post. Much of this "editorial" is name-calling, accusations, and bending of the truth. These are classic techniques used by someone who, when viewed objectively, doesn't have a leg to stand on in the argument. "Shooter's" fall from grace would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Chief Joyce is a piece of dirt for doing this. The guy’s frigging loaded. Everybody knows it. But instead of manning up and paying what he owed, he pulled a bunch of crap to try to put Rob Slager’s paper out of business.
He's a piece of dirt for appealing a ruling? That's a pretty broad, sweeping statement. I don't know that he's "frigging loaded". Maybe he is, but maybe that $20k is a big deal to him. The owners of the New York Mets are probably "frigging loaded", but they just lost $700million in an investment scam - $20k is probably a big deal to the owner of the Mets these days, so who knows what it is for Joyce. It's an awfully big assumption to throw out there that he can just "man up" and eat the $20k. Also, Slager and others have made a big deal about this being the first time the Anti-SLAPP statute was applied in this type of case. OF COURSE there's going to be an appeal on anything that sets a precedent like that. That's just how the legal system works. It would have been irresponsible of Joyce NOT to appeal, given how the US legal system is driven by precedent. This entire statement from "Shooter" is misguided at best.
I read the court ruling. It’s on the internet.
I read it too. It's 14 pages and available at http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/docs/2009 … ision.pdf. "Shooter" referenced the ruling, but definitely didn't reference it, and it took me a while to dig it up. I don't believe Slager has ever actually pointed to the ruling itself, choosing instead to make claims based on it, presumably hoping that nobody would dig it up to see what it actually says. In my next paragraph, we'll see why. If Slager has indeed pointed to the full ruling in the past, please let me know and I'll update this.
Chief Joyce got his butt kicked. Rob Slager showed evidence that everything he wrote about Chief Joyce was true.
Well, that's just not true. Some reasons:
* One of the important parts of the decision was that Joyce claimed the Observer wrote this to increase readership and thus increase revenues. At the time, the Observer was free, so the court said this couldn't be a factor. As we know, the paper is no longer free, so this might be different if the case were filed (or appealed) today.
* The memorandum does not say that "everything he wrote about Chief Joyce was true", as "Shooter" claims. It says things like the articles had "[b]some[b] factual support" (emphasis added) and it draws semantic distinctions between Slager saying that Joyce was "told" to do something vs being "ordered" to do something. Reading the ruling, one could easily come to the conclusion that Joyce simply wasn't prepared, as it states that he failed to meet the burden of proof, as opposed to Slager trouncing him.
* The way the decision is written, there are many areas where Joyce appears to have simply not submitted evidence. I'll admit I'm puzzled by this, but as the old saying goes "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". I'm not sure why the evidence wasn't submitted (only the Chief can truly know that), but saying that he didn't have any evidence is just irresponsible
* Slager hides behind the "In this corner" label in parts of the decision. Essentially, that part of his blog is viewed as "petitioning activity" or a "call to action". He was essentially able to say "look, what I wrote was designed to get an investigation into _____, and here's some evidence of that investigation. According to the memorandum, this right to petition is "highly protected speech". Joyce had claimed that the right to petition was restricted to individuals and not corporations as a result of Cadle Co. v. Schlightmann (see what I mean about precedents?), Slager claimed otherwise, and there had been no case in MA to decide. I'm not a lawyer, but it would appear that, had the judge sided with Joyce about his right to petition argument, the motion to dismiss would've been thrown out.
There are other reasons, but I don't want this post to turn into another War & Peace that nobody actually reads, so I'll move on....
Instead of taking it like a man and paying everything he owed, Chief Joyce sniveled his way out of paying $8,000. What the hell is $8,000 to a guy who got a huge inheritance a few years ago? It’s not even a drop in the bucket. That’s just garbage to do that, espeically for a cop.
No, Chief Joyce appealed, and Slager settled. It's funny, when the Library trustees settled their issues for less than what they had originally sought after a long drawn-out affair, Slager jumped all over them saying it was obviously proof that they were in the wrong. Now Slager does the same thing and he's standing up for himself and his family? The hypocrisy would be funny if it wasn't so sad... Also, I don't know anything about Joyce's finances, but neither does "Shooter" - to make a claim that he has plenty of money with which to pay this is ridiculous.
If Chief Joyce thought he would beat Rob Slager on an appeal, why did he agree to pay Rob Slager anything?
If Rob Slager thought he would beat Chief Joyce on appeal, why did he agree to give up anything? The answer that "Shooter" and Slager will come back with is cash flow - the recession, business is hurting, need to pay the bills, step back to move forward, etc... That's a convenient excuse to hide behind, but Slager is showing now that there are other ways to save that money. Had he moved out 8 months ago and started saving his $1,500 a month, he would've had that $12k. If he didn't overprint his paper every week and leave extra unsold copies all over the place, he would've saved money. Had he consolidated his papers earlier...etc, etc. I don't know the details of Slager's finances, but condos in his neighborhood in Halifax are about $180k these days. (Before he accuses me of stalking him, it was two web searches to get that information - Google and Zillow). I don't know what he paid for his, but I find it hard to believe that $12k makes a life-or-death situation. And, if it does, he should have seen it coming long before it got to the point that he had no other choice to settle. The last thing I'll say about this is that Slager up and went on a vacation to Disney a few weeks ago - if his finances were so dire that he had to compromise his position in this case to pay the bills, then going on that trip was plain irresponsible, and a disservice to his family.
I read about Anti-SLAPP law on the internet. Chief Joyce would need to pay for the rest of Rob Slager’s legal bills again when he lost. Chief Joyce knew Rob Slager didn’t have a lot of money to keep paying his lawyer.
If Slager and his lawyer were oh-so-confident about their victory, and if Joyce would have had to pay in the event of such a victory, AND if chief Joyce is as "loaded" as "Shooter" says he is, then what's the concern about payment? Heck, rack up those bills and really stick it to the chief! The only reason not to continue to fight would be if Slager's lawyer said something to the effect of "hey, I'm not so sure we're going to win this, and if we lose, you gotta pay." But since Joyce already got his butt kicked, that shouldn't be a worry, right? RIGHT?
So Chief Joyce just tried to bleed him out. That’s what this piece of crap lawsuit was about. You should all read it yourself. It really is disgusting.
Well, some would say that this lawsuit was really about someone finally taking a stand against a "journalist" who has twisted the truth for far too long. It's someone refusing to take it any further, and trying to do something to better the community. I've posted repeatedly about how Slager manipulates the truth, and his readers, and presses ever so close to the line of blatantly lying. The fact that the judge said the articles had "some basis" in truth and not anything stronger than "some" shows that he recognized this - in this case, Slager played fast and loose with the facts, but (intentionally or not) stopped short of full-out lying.
What really pissed me off was the crap the hate bloggers have been writing about this
What really pisses off the bloggers is when Slager toes the line of journalism ethics and gets away with it. What really pisses them off is when he serves as a mouthpiece for the BoS as they do their best to flush this town down the tubes. What really pi....actually, this might be a good idea for a full thread. Maybe I'll start that when I'm done with this.
How messed up is that? Chief Joyce filed a crap lawsuit against Rob Slager and the Observer, gets his lunch handed to him, and refuses to pay until Rob Slager agrees to cut $8,000 off the money he was owed.
Again, it wasn't a "crap" lawsuit - it was someone finally standing up to a bully in the press. Then the same person appealed, as he should have. Slager then cut a deal to avoid having to go through the appeal, and potentially lose the entire thing.
He wrote how he had no choice to settle with Joyce because he paid with a lot of his own money to fight the crap lawsuit.
...and if he and his legal team really thought they were going to win the appeal, they would have continued to fight it because in the end, as "Shooter" said, Joyce would have had to pay the full legal bill. The only reason to settle here is if Slager or his representation are not confident the decision would hold up under appeal. If the legal team is confident in the outcome, they will work knowing that the bills will be taken care of.
He wrote about how he needed that money back to save his house.
I think the end of this sentence that "Shooter" forgot to add was "save his house, and take his family on a trip to Disney". Seriously, any claims he makes about his dire financial situation are completely blown out of the water by his Disney trip. A father who decides to hop on a plane with his family for a vacation when his finances are such that he's in danger of losing his home is simply irresponsible.
But the idiot hate bloggers are making it out like Rob Slager is the bad guy in this
A) I'm not an idiot, so stop insulting me. It's telling that "Shooter's" entire editorial bost is basically a list of insults and incorrect facts. That's absolutely something that someone on the wrong end of an argument would do.
B) The only thing we "hate" here is what Slager's shoddy journalism and borderline ethical decisions have done to this community.
C) If Slager didn't carry on and on and on about the case, we wouldn't be discussing it right now. You'll notice that most of the anti-Slager stuff here is reactionary - he posts something stupid, and we comment on it. Sort of like I'm doing right now.
Look, I’ve written plenty so far about my problems with him.
"...so you can trust me no matter what I'm about to say..."
Some people in this town want to put him out of business
That may be true, but I'd guess that most of them would settle for him being a fair reporter, covering situations accurately, and being an honest journalist.
For them to say Rob Slager has no balls is a frigging joke.
Looks like one person said he has no balls. But Shooter wouldn't want to group a whole bunch of people together based on what one person said, right? That being said, it takes some serious "stones" (to use "Shooter's" term) to report and editorialize the way Slager does - I probably wouldn't have the guts to stretch the truth and blatantly push political positions based on shoddy facts the way he does.
But he took it to court and kicked Chief Joyce’s butt all the way back to Wareham.
I've refuted this three or four times now, so just read what I wrote above
The hate bloggers are saying Rob Slager is trying to stiff his printer now
Again I ask, can someone point me to where this was said? The closest I could find was at: https://warehamwater.cruelery.com/viewtopic.php?id=5573. Anybody reading that, though, can blatantly see that people were just referencing the fact that Slager himself said he fell behind on his bills, and if he went out of business the printer wouldn't get paid. So Mr "Shooter", when you say "He never wrote anything like that. Read it again you bozos", I will simply ask you to read the line where he wrote "If we went out of business the printer wouldn’t be able to recover the past due amount (we’re an LLC with few liquid assets)." Sounds to me like if he goes out of business, the printer gets stiffed. I'd appreciate it if you would kindly remove the "bozos" comment, and I'll just assume you missed that line when doing the research for your column.
Most of the crap written on Bill Whitehouse’s web site is coming from the same family
Whitehouse, MacDonald, O'Connell, Winslow, Brady, Holmes, etc... Yep, definitely all from the same family. I really don't even know what to say to this.
I know these people personally.
You don't know me "Shooter". I don't care who you are - nobody on this site knows my secret identity. I'll ask you then to stop making claims you can't back up.
One of them wrote something about how $8,000 shouldn’t be enough to make Rob Slager lose his house.
Again, if he's able to take his family on a trip to Disney, then $8k isn't a lose-your-house amount. If it is, then he should've staycationed and not vacationed.
Not everybody gets to live off an inheritance or cheat the town out of a boatload of cash.
Interesting accusation - who exactly "cheat(ed) the town out of a boatload of cash"? Stuff like this is classic media-manipulation technique. He writes an article about how Joyce is a "loser" (quote directly from the headline). He makes an earlier refernece to an inheritance for Joyce. Now he references the interitance and the cheating of the town in the same sentence. Read literally, he's not accusing the chief of anything. However, any reasonable person who looks at this instantly sees what he's trying to imply. This sentence could be considered to have "some basis in fact", but it's clearly a cheap shot at the chief.
The rest of the post is mostly accusations and more cheap shots, so I'm not going to address those.
Edited on 8/25 to reflect Larry and Ham taking credit for a couple of the comments that Shooter noted. Hey Rob, I was wrong about what I wrote, so I corrected it and noted what the correction was. Maybe you can do the same?
Auto-edited on 2020-08-11 to update URLs
Last edited by acasualobserver (2009-08-25 20:07:48)
Offline
#2 2009-08-24 20:49:53
The link for the Joyce ruling wasn't working. Here it is (and thanks):
http://www.rcfp.org/newsitems/docs/2009 … cision.pdf
Offline
#3 2009-08-24 20:58:03
I'll take credit for saying Slager has no balls.
Excellent job again Casual. I still find it odd that when Slager picks a subject, Shooter also picks the same subject. For the record, he doesn't know me either.
Offline
#4 2009-08-24 21:12:26
Casual...Thank you for your knowledge and sharing it with us.
Last edited by danoconnell (2009-08-24 21:14:21)
Offline
#5 2009-08-24 21:15:03
I called Chief Joyce a hero. I'll call him a hero again. He got the man who declared "I'll never settle" to settle. And now that man's new office has a toilet in it.
Offline
#6 2009-08-24 21:31:59
Most of the crap written on Bill Whitehouse’s web site is coming from the same family
Whitehouse, MacDonald, O'Connell, Winslow, Brady, Holmes, etc... Yep, definitely all from the same family. I really don't even know what to say to this.
casual this statement is easily settled.. we are all brothers and sisters of wareham.. maybe thats what he meant??
Offline
#7 2009-08-24 22:46:33
Gee whiz, Casual. You got on Bobo's bad side. He says his Mommy bought his 12 hour Disney trip. (He wrote in previous columns about what a wonderful guy he was for taking the family to Disney etc but oh well, that's Bobo for you.)
Flush your new office chair and go to bed Bobo.
Offline
#8 2009-08-25 07:35:03
well, if mommy paid for disney, mommy should've paid for necessities. Either way it's irresponsible.
I'll update the big post later today with the corrections people made in the thread
Offline
#9 2009-08-25 08:13:10
I have a question about the "settlement".
Did they settle?
The ragman is saying they settled, but has anyone asked Joyce?
The reason I pose this question is that Joyce appealed the $20,000 and there was a hearing. After the hearing it was expected that the judge would issue a ruling as to the legitimacy of the ragman's expenses. Now in the mean time they could have settled if the ragman was unsure on how the court would rule.
I think this needs to be looked into as "settling" and having a judge reduce your expenses are two hugely different things.
Offline
#10 2009-08-25 08:56:17
The long and short of it is that if the roles were reversed, we would be reading a long editorial about fighting for what's right and the truth and that HE WILL NEVER SETTLE. Because the roles are reversed, Joyce ends up receiving the brunt of the abuse because he filed an appeal. Now, what is very curious to me is that Paul Shooter chose the very same subject and is obviously well versed in the Joyce case. That curiousity is compounded by some of the references made in the Shooter editorial. That is why I truly believe we have a dual personality going on here.
To take it a step further, there are dual personalities inside of Shooter. One is the tough guy bad ass who threatens to bash heads and isn't afraid of anyone. The other is the fearful little boy who uses a pen name because he is afraid of punishment and retribution.
If I was a shrink, I wouldn't take this case!
Offline
#11 2009-08-25 09:03:13
shooter has the same CLOUDED TRUTH & FACT INK in his pen that slager does that is pretty clear..
Offline
#12 2009-08-25 09:04:35
Awesome! I got my first Jeer! I feel like I should print it out and hang it on my wall for posterity. As usual, though, it's full of crap. Let's see why...
This yahoo actually wrote an entire dissertation on Whitehouse's web site about how I lied about my family's financial challenges.
This is false on a couple of levels. My "dissertation" was about the errors and misleading statements in "Shooter's" column. This is evident right from the title of this thread. Yes, there are some comments on the finances, but only where necessary to respond to what "Shooter" said. By my count, I had 23 different issues with what "Shooter" said (including the paragrpaph about his "fall from grace"). Of these, 5 made reference to Slager's finances, and they were all direct responses to comments "Shooter" made about the finances. By my math, that's 21.7%. How 21.7% of the content can make up an "entire dissertation" is beyond me. This is like when Slager said that his comment about Cronan being boneheaded at times balances and entire month of pro-BoS and anti-opponent coverage. It's just silly.
I don't even know where to start. My mother paid for our trip to Disney. It was planned more than a year ago, before Joyce's ridiculous law suit.
That's very nice of her, and it's great that Slager has a supportive family (I'm not being sarcastic here - it really is a great thing). However, it doesn't change the situation. The lawsuit wasn't the only expense that Slager had - I referenced his use of the office, over-printing of the paper, etc. My family lives on one income. You know what that means? That means that if we were anywhere near close to having a situation where our house, or our livelihood, could be in financial jeopardy, we wouldn't go to Disney. If someone offered to pay for such a trip, my response would be "wow, thank you for the generous offer. However, we're facing some significant financial hardship, and it wouldn't be responsible for us to take that amount of money and put it towards a want, instead of a need". Now, Slager's going to accuse me of forcing my opinions on him again. That's not what I'm doing, and not what I've ever done. Slager's completely entitled to his opinion, and completely entitled to make a different decision than I would, even if it contributes to putting his home at risk. Heck, he's even entitled to write a blog post about it. However, I am also entitled to call bullcrap on that blog post, when it's obvious he's trying to drum up sympathy with it. I don't buy the sob story, and I'm not going to sit idly on the sideline while others get hoodwinked into believing this, and other things he writes.
This is a guy who claims everything we write is a lie
False. Only the stuff I respond to by saying "this is a lie" or "he made this up" or something along those lines. Granted, that's most of his content, but still - it's not everything.
he essentially an entire column about a subject he knew nothing about.
Dang, I got downgraded from the dissertation. As stated above, my "column" was about the lawsuit, and specifically about "Shooter's" commentary on it. Slager is now doing something typical of him - he's taking the 1/5 of it that suits his agenda and trying to paint me as a "yahoo" and himself as the good guy. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad and obvious.
Here's a bit of advice to you. Get a life.
I have a life - a wonderful life with a great family, friends, and hobbies that I enjoy. However, and this is where it sucks for you Slager, I have a great bullshit detector and 2 hours a day on the commuter rail. That means I have all kinds of time to shed light on your operation, the reasoning skills (thanks for the compliment!) to show how you twist the facts to support your agenda, and the research ability to find the truth.
It's OK that people have different opinions than you do.
I read a great quote the other day that I think is a "classic" in the publishing industry, but I have no idea who originally said it. It's something to the effect of "Having an op/ed column absolutely entitles you to your own opinion, but it does NOT entitle you to your own facts". I'd say about 90% of what I write is corrections or completions of facts. The remainder that is opinion is based on how things look different when all of the proper facts are presented. At the risk of starting another bruhaha, let's compare this to the national debate on healthcare. I support the general idea of a national one-payer system. If you oppose it, that's fine. But if you oppose it based on the fact that it's going to create "death panels" and suck money away from healthcare for seniors, than that's not fine, because it's based on incorrect "facts". If I were responding to an editorial about healthcare, I would attack those faulty assumptions, not the opinion. That's what I've done with Slager and "Shooter's" posts - proven the "facts" wrong, not the opinions.
You don't need to spend hours on end trying to prove your viewpoint is the correct one.
But then what else will I do on the train? Seriously, though - I'm not trying to prove my viewpoint is the correct one. All I'm doing is giving readers who choose to wade through my analyses the facts that you choose to omit or distort, and also provide the detailed analysis of your reasoning to show that it's often logically invalid, oftentimes making your accusations baseless. Finally, I want to show people the classic ways that you manipulate the media that you write in, as well as your readers. It's actually pretty impressive the way you keep repeating these techniques even after getting called out on them. As "Shooter" would say, that takes some stones.
It's clear to everyone that you have grown so desperate to discredit others that you are now willing to completely embarass yourself by writing absolute nonsense.
Speaking of classic manipulation techniques, here's a great example. Based on 1/5 of the post that he refers to as "nonsense" (which I've already refuted), he starts trying to paint me as embarassing myself and writing nonsense. It's an obvious attempt to discredit me so that in the future when I point out his distortions and manipulation attempts, readers won't put as much faith in what I write. At no point in his "Jeer" did he address the fact that he's been stretching the truth on the original ruling, and I was the first to actually read the thing and write about it (at least that I've seen). At no point does he recognize Joyce's right to appeal as anything more than an attempt to 'bleed' him, even though it was legally and logically the right thing for him to do. At no point does he address the fact that he and "Shooter" have become "hate bloggers" themselves, hurling insults and accusations at people for writing about their differing opinions. At no point does he acknowledge any of the incorrect statements in this column or any of the previous ones - yes, he's changed some of the statements, but there's never a "correction". Heck, I don't even get credit for proofreading his stuff! I mean, he changed the headline about the OVM lifting a boycott after I pointed out that only the people doing the boycotting can "lift" it. Imagine how much financial trouble Slager would be in if he had to pay me for this proofreading service!!!
So where's the nonsense that I wrote, Bob? Is it the 20% of the article where I have a different opinion about financial responsibility (or lack thereof)? Is that what you're basing these slurs on? That's really what you're going with? I've said this before in private to some people, but Bob Slager is either the absolute dumbest person I've ever met, or the absolute smartest. Either he really believes in what he's saying and think he's making coherent arguments (which would make him the dumbest), or he's playing a game of journalistic chess the likes of which the world has never seen, and is setting us all up for something. I really don't think it can be anywhere in between.
I know you're going to read this, Bob, so I'm going to put a challenge out there for you. I'm not going to fight with you, but how about this. Since you won't post on this site, ostensibly because your lawyer said you can't do anything that would be seen as willingness to engage in debate with people on this site (even though you post direct responses on your site to what people say here, which seesm like debate to me) and since I won't post on yours because I refuse to have to pay a fee to correct you and/or express my opinions, how about I setup a new site. We can use Google to host it for us, so there's no cost associated. I haven't fully thought through the details, but we can make it a "Wareham truth challenge" - political news and/or commentary where there's two people who are allowed to post. Me and you, mano e mano, blogger vs blogger. Think of it as Crossfire for the Internet generation, minus the John Stewart debacle. We'll obviously need to have some rules and restrictions around it, but I think it would be a great way to cut through the BS and get straight to the issues. If you're interested, either post something in the free area of your site, or send me an email. You know my addresas. If I don't get any response to this in 24 hours, I'll post it again as a thread on the main page of this forum, assuming that you just didn't see it. We all know that given your "stones" you wouldn't just ignore something like this.
Offline
#13 2009-08-25 09:14:34
Casual,
I wanted to issue a challenge to the posters on the other side to set up a thread here and let them respond or debate with us. I'm sure they will come up with some excuse about being blackballed or censored (which is exactly what happens on that site), but that would certainly give them an opportunity to converse with us directly.
Taking bets on whether he will accept your challenge or not?
Congrats on your jeer, that is quite an honor!
Offline
#14 2009-08-25 10:26:27
I just thought it was nice that his mommy holds no hard feelings about Bobo being such a humongous disappointment that his father turned to the whiskey and gin and sucked it down two hands at a time just to forget his dissappointment of a son. At least Bobo inherited one thing from his dear old Dad. I'd imagine creating a made up reporter (Paul Shooter) seems like a good idea after you've knocked a few back.
Bobo, think though, if you hadn't been dropping $18,000 a year on a failing business and gotten a real job, you could have taken the fam to Disney a few times now, maybe even for a whole week, not just a touchdown at the airport and turn right around. But then again, I'd imagine the women in that family are used to be being the breadwinners, what between you and Papa Ragman living in your own dreamworlds.
Think of the bright side Bobo, now your office has a shower in it! And a toilet, a sink, a bath mat...
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-08-25 10:29:13)
Offline
#15 2009-08-25 10:43:18
Come on Ham, he's not creative enough to have thought the Paul Shooter saga out even if he could unleash his uncensored side and write such tripe.
In Paul Shooter he's merely found a sycophant. He balances the servile relationship he has with Brucie.
Brucie has Bobo, Bobo has Shooter.
Offline
#16 2009-08-25 10:55:02
Neighbor, I discussed it in another post, but I'll meet you half way. I'm sure when his psyche breaks and his multiple personalities break loose, and when he puts the Paul Shooter puppet on his hand and starts making him talk in a squeeky voice...I'm sure TO HIM that seems like a very real person.
Offline
#17 2009-08-25 13:26:10
Caz, Bobo/Shooter are just jealous of your insight and writing ability.
Also, after reading the Joyce ruling, it looks like after it was determined that Bobo's comments were covered under his "right to petition", due to the fact of Joyce being a public official, the cards were stacked against Joyce. Like the ousting of Brucie as chair in '06, it doesn't mean that Bobo's (or Brucie's) actions were ethical/moral, it just means even assholes have protection under our laws. The claims made about the shortcomings of Bobo (and Brucie, etc.) are real, and these were attempts to expose them. I think it's working. Bobo is withering away. Brucie will be out in April (not soon enough), and his pet projects (Westfield, Mayoral Gov't, etc.) are likely to fail.
LM, I doubt any of them would venture to come and interact with us here (at least for very long). I'm sure they'd see it as akin to selling their souls. They would be barraged by facts and instances about their heroes disgraceful actions, then run back to the "subscribed safety" of Boboland. Let the ten of them go 'round and 'round and wallow in their ignorance.
PShooter
Last edited by PShooter (2009-08-25 13:48:03)
Offline
#18 2009-08-25 17:24:20
Well, he hasn't responded to the challenge yet - but of course, he changed the content of the Jeer without noting that it was updated. I wrote this morning's comments based on this morning's version of the jeer. I only have one comment on his latest change. He says that it's ok to have different opinions, and not everybody's going to think like me, etc, etc. He then goes on to assume that I don't have children, because if I did I would definitely take them to Disney World even as my financial house of cards was falling down all around me. Apparently, the message here is that I have to think like him, even though nobody should agree with how I think. It's a continuation of his epic hypocrisy that would be funny if it wasn't so sad. Personally, I would choose to keep a roof over my kid's head over going to Disney, but maybe I'm crazy. If his opinion is that going to Disney is more important, God bless him, but again don't try to play the sympathy card with your finances. It was a decision that Slager made to spend financial resouces (his, his mother's, doesn't matter) on a "want" instead of a "need". No matter how much he tries to play up the picture of his doe-eyed twins begging to see the Mouse, that trip is a want. In my book, that's something that happens when the needs are all taken care of.
Finally, lest you think that this exact hypocritical position ("Not everybody has to think like you, but if you don't think like me, you're wrong"), here's a jeer from 8/20 - I don't know when it was posted, but it was definitely available as "Living in a bubble" in the version of his site I saved that day.
Even if you don’t believe Brady’s exclusionary policy is racially motivated that doesn’t mean other people can’t see things differently. That’s the typical dismissive attitude shown far too often by the narrow-minded bloggers. There really are people who don’t think the way you do. That doesn’t make them stupid or evil. It makes you stupid or evil.
Let's think about this for a second. Slager states that people who see things differently from the bloggers here are not stupid or evil. However, if you disagree with that, then you are stupid or evil. By not seeing the world the way he does, he puts you in a class that he just said people who disagree with you don't belong in. Am I the only one who sees the ridiculousness here? I want to laugh, but sometimes I want to cry...
Offline
#19 2009-08-25 17:29:15
Casualobserver...I have only known a couple of people in Wareham that could write and think the way you do. I think I know you. If you are who I think you are, we disagreed politically more than we ever agreed. I always respected your intellect and foresight.
I still do.
Ironic that I now agree with everything you say.
Thanks for the very informative posts.
Offline
#20 2009-08-25 17:49:34
danoconnell wrote:
Casualobserver...I have only known a couple of people in Wareham that could write and think the way you do. I think I know you.
Sorry to disappoint Dan, and I don't mean to insult, but I have no idea who you are outside of this forum. If we've met, then I must've gotten hit by a truck afterwards because I don't remember it. Though, I suppose if I got hit by a truck and lost my memory, I wouldn't remember getting hit by the truck......
Offline
#21 2009-08-25 17:54:37
Touche'!!
You must have a very smart twin I know.
Offline
#22 2009-08-25 17:56:53
Do most people with kids and a single-income family usually drop $18,000 a year on an office for a failed business and forego all gainful employment opportunities to spend all of their waking hours kissing the ass of a scumbag politician for free?
Just wondering.
Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-08-25 17:57:33)
Offline
#23 2009-08-25 17:57:01
casual i just wanted to thank you for all the work you put into wading thru his bs.. its a great contrast between facts and opinions..
Offline
#24 2009-08-25 18:12:08
Bobo, we've been breaking your balls about the 12 hour Disney trip for a month. You're just NOW getting around to saying you came back early? Please. That wasn't necessary, nobody missed you. At all. Literally, in those two days, the town actually got a hundred times better. Take a week off next time and the town might actually get back into good shape.
How does it save money to come back early exactly? You already had a hotel room, and no matter what, you have to fly back either after a couple of days or after a week. You have to eat up here or eat down there. Were you worried you woudn't be able to keep yourself from buying Mickey Mouse toys or what?
Bobo, you're like that kid in school that always says they have a girlfriend, but you never met her because she lives in the next town. Every time someone calls you on a fib, you answer with another fib.
Feel free to take an extended vacation next time, Bobo. Really. No one will miss you. Take all the time you want.
Offline
#25 2009-08-25 18:17:15
Uh oh, Casual, watch out! If you keep it up, Bobo will put you on his Wall of Shame! And that wall will be in his new office, right between the tub and the toilet! Oh no!
Offline
#26 2009-08-25 18:29:13
Funny he was at stop and shop on Sunday.
it must of been a real short trip.
who's bullshitting who ?
Offline
#27 2009-08-25 18:36:28
onset ma wrote:
Funny he was at stop and shop on Sunday.
it must of been a real short trip.
who's bullshitting who ?
the sunday he was @ disney??? funny he still did his online chat said the wife and kids were sleeping tired from the fun filled day..
Offline
#28 2009-08-26 11:52:37
i went ON A DISNEY TRIP MY MOMMEY PAID FOR IT , MY WIFE SUPPORTS ME , MY DADDY HATES ME , AND I AM A 2 BIT LOOSER WHO CANT RUN A SUCESSFUL NEWSPAPER , I AM A DUMBASS AND MY NAME IS SLAGER THE MOMMEYS BOY.
Offline
#29 2009-08-26 14:05:50
SHOOTER SAYS JOYCE IS THE LOOSER , I DOUBT IT HE HAS A JOB ,AND DOING WELL SHOOTER OR SLAGER WHO EVER YOU ARE YOU NARE THE LOSSER YOU HAVE MANY DEBTS , MOMMEY PAYS FOR YOUR TRIPS TO DISNEY, YOU ARE NEARLEY BANKRUPT , AND YOU WILL SOON BE OUT OF BUSSNINESS, BYE BYE LOOSER.
Offline
