Hey y'all, I know lots of people here refuse to acknowledge Slager's existence, so this thread isn't for you.  For those of you who do read the Observer, though, I have a question for you.  Can you help me pull together a list of ridiculous claims that he's made that never panned out, and that he just dropped?  I'm looking for things that he's written that would appear to have no other purpose than to try to paint someone in a bad light, support his opinion, or stir up some controversy.  I'd prefer things that he's stopped discussing (presumably because he's recognized he was wrong), but I'll settle for things that are obviously wrong, but yet he keeps pushing the issue.  As usual, please try to avoid angry rants if you join into this discussion - I'm looking only for specific facts (exact quotes are ideal).  If you don't want to post the stuff here, just send me a private message.  Thanks!

Some examples that I have come up with so far:

• Accusations that the library trustees lost $250k based on something that someone told him they heard from someone else that an unnamed source said - This whole idea seems to have disappeared off of his site, presumably because the loss he was claiming never existed.  (This is the best example I can think of for what I'm looking for.  Based on a shaky source, no backup evidence, bold claims, significant accusations, and absolutely nothing behind the reports.  The remaining examples are less appropriate for what I'm trying to collect, so I hope this example inspires everybody)


• Accusations that the accidental broadcast of the executive session when they talked about targeting specific people in their 'audit' was illegal.  (This would be an example of the "obviously wrong, yet he keeps pushing")

The rest of these examples are sort of tangential to what I'm looking for, but it's what I have so far.  Some of these are just examples of him being hypocritical, but even stuff like that might be helpful.

• Repeated implications that resignations where people left for better opportunities elsewhere were somehow tied to the audit


• Claiming that he doesn't post here because his lawyer warned him about being willing to engage in debate with the people on this site, yet directly responding to posters here on his own site.


• Prediction and continued insistence that Bob's meeting was a "recall rally", when it obviously wasn't


• Calling people here "hatebloggers", while himself writing things like 'Is it difficult going through life as both a complete idiot and a liar, Mr. P?'.


• Claiming to "break" the news that Bob was the organizer of his meeting when he was the one that originally posted the invitation here


• Claiming that the DOR "confirmed the town’s authority to launch its computer audit", when in fact all they said was that the particular concerned that was raised with them was not a reason why it was illegal.  They did not comment on the overall authority/legality, nor did they comment on any privacy implications, potential PCI violations, etc.  This is akin to me saying to the people at Wal-Mart "Hey is it ok if I go rob Target?"  If they say "We have no problems with that", that doesn't mean the action is ok - it just means the one party that I asked about one specific issue doesn't have a problem with it.  (Sorry to put my editorial in this bullet, but I don't think I've commented on this particular issue yet).