Mr Slager,

There's an old saying that everyone is entitled to his own opinions, but not to his own facts.  With this as my guide, I have dissected many of your recent posts, citing inaccuracies, times when you don't include all of the facts, and areas where you draw improper conclusions based on what you have written.  While you have accused me of being a "yahoo" who wants to force others to share my opinions, I have to assume this is merely an attempt to paint me in a negative light so that readers will not see through your techniques like I have.  Where I have pushed my opinion in these corrections, it has been as a result of introducing facts that change the tone of your story; this includes both things you choose to leave out, as well as incorrect or irrelevant things you choose to include.

You have called me a liar on more than one occasion, oftentimes distorting what I have written to support your claim, and you refuse to post anything on this site even though other members started a thread offering to welcome you here.  I have shown examples of many misleading posts that you have made on your website, and I refuse to comment on your site because the public shouldn't have to "pay to play" to post opinions and corrections, and I will not be censored like you have censored others.  Therefore, in order to get to the bottom of this, I have a proposal for you.  I will set up a new blog, tentatively titled "The Real Truth About Wareham" (though I am very much open to different titles).  This blog will have two people allowed to post on it - me, and you.  It will be a place where we can discuss and debate the issues as individuals, without any "hateblogging" having an effect on it.

I have previously proposed this challenge in another discussion, but I am posting it again here as a new thread because I have not seen a response from you via email or on your website.  I can only assume that this means that you didn't see the post, even though you claim to save all of them on your hard drive - after all, why else would you not respond?  As "Shooter" said, and as I agreed, you have "stones", so I can't imagine you would just ignore such a challenge.  I'm sure if you decline, you'll cite something about it not being worth your time to argue with a "liar", or find another way to try to brush me away.  I assure you Mr Slager, the public sees through excuses like that, and recognizes it for what it is - just another tactic.  Denying this opportunity will not show anything about me, as I will continue to correct your posts here.  It will, however, show that you are unwilling to have a reasonable conversation on a 'neutral field', with someone who is willing to do all of the work to set it up.

As I mentioned in my original proposal, we will need to have some ground rules.  I suggest that our initial discussions be around these ground rules, but I do have some suggestions:

1. I will not be revealing my identity.  Much like we both agree that "Paul Shooter" should be allowed to write editorial content under a pseudonym, I hope you will agree that others should be afforded that right as well.


2. All claims and statements must be cited.  No outlandish claims or accusations without evidence.


3. All questions posed must be answered directly, unless they are logical fallacies.  For example, there is no way to answer "So, have you stopped beating your wife?" Note that I'm not accusing anybody of anything, that's just the classic example for that type of question - if you say "yes", that means you used to be a wife beater...if you say "no", it means you still are.  There's no way to answer "I never hurt my wife".  I have seen several examples where you have attempted to use this technique to corner other people, and I will not stand for it..


4. I assume that the majority of the discussion will focus on the current political situation and controversies, but I am open to other topics as well.


5. Given your history with having a newspaper in the town, it is likely that you have far more historical knowledge and contacts from whom you can get further information.  With this in mind, I may need longer to respond to your question(s), depending on what they are.  I hope you understand this.  However, in situations where this is the case, I will respond quickly saying that I need to do some research, and give an estimate of when I will have the response.  Obviously, if you're up against a deadline, you can do the same


6. We take turns in our posts - no stacking up multiple questions/positions while the other person is trying to respond

Mr Slager, despite what you claim I am not challenging your opinions - we both know that there is no way that an opinion can be "right" or "wrong".  I am challenging, though, how you derive and present those opinions.  It is my opinion that many of your writings are misleading, misguided, and irresponsible - NOT because of what your opinions are, but because of how you attempt to support them.  Therefore, this challenge is about the facts and the underlying arguments you make, as well as what you see wrong with my arguments.  Finally, please note again that I will be continuing to point out the inaccuracies and flawed arguments that you lay forth, whether it is on this site or on one where we can discuss it.  The ball is now officially in your court Mr. Slager - if you choose to respond, please either post something in the public area of your website, or email me.  I look forward to your response, and hope that we can have a series of productive discussions.