Every "Paul aka Bobo Shooter" Column reads the same:

"Blah blah blah, I asked Bobo not to edit what I write, blah blah blah, I'm going to say Brucey is bad so you won't think I'm Bobo, blah blah blah, I'll take shots at some of the selectmen so you won't think I'm Bobo, but I'll never take a shot at Brenda because her friend has money and is a big Bobo advertiser, blah blah blah, I don't like Bobo, but people are evil for criticizing Bobo, yes, that makes sense to people other than Bobo, sure it does, blah blah blah, I say "I'm telling you straight up" just like every other anonymous Bobo source, blah blah blah, I'm going to throw out some phrases Bobo thinks are cool and hip so you'll all thing I'm a cool young dude, blah blah blah...in conclusion, let me close by saying, crap friggin crap, crap crap crap friggin crap bull, bull bull, crap friggin bull crap."

"PS - I'm not Bobo because I criticized Brucey and therefore that proves I'm not Bobo."

Last edited by Hamatron5000 (2009-09-01 11:34:03)

Something about Shooters line: " I want to remind Rob Slager that he told me he wouldn’t edit the stuff I write in my editorials. The reason I made him do that ..."
Made him do that? Those words ring a bell. Didn't Slager write that Susan Williams Gifford made her husband sign a letter?

Funny, when the old bag Andrea left the paper he had all these resumes but wouldn't hire anyone because they were not up to the caliber of her.  So then he "hires" Shooter-- come on this guy writes like an 8th grader!

I just want to know how Bobo and Shooty have their editorial meetings - the new bathroom office must be filled (and smelled) to capacity.

It's funny.  As I read through this, I thought to myself "it's weird that there's much less in here that needs correcting than there is in a typical Slager piece."  Then I read it again, and realized that the reason for this is that he doesn't really say anything.  In a column just over 1,000 words, the first 300+ are fluff about himself.  Nothing doing there. 

Then he actually nails the issue with the new chief.  The chief and the town of North Andover both made it clear that his priority is to North Andover, and not to Wareham, so what happens when a conflict comes up, and he has to choose between the two towns.  I'm not questioning the chief's qualifications.  However, even if he's the most qualified person in the world, it doesn't matter if he's not available.

The biggest issue I have with the article is with the way that he tries to paint Bliss as "crying to the steelworkers" unfairly. He says he has problems with "(a)ccountants pretending they are steelworkers."  The simple fact is that the USW represents people in manufacturing, metals, chemicals, healthcare, pharma, and public employees, among many others(Source).  Additionally, over 1/3 of all public-sector employees are represented by a union (Source).  Finally, Bliss talked to the union before being fired for doing something that the Board had previously allowed.  The idea that he went "crying" to them after getting "popped" is misleading at best.  To insinuate that accountants in the public sector shouldn't join a union is just ridiculous.

As for his thoughts on the audit, he's also falling into the Robert Slager "there's no way that there could possibly be anything illegal about this" camp.  By not acknowledging the possibility that the DA's investigation is legitimate, he's not accurately representing the situation.  Most of the rest of the section is his opinion, which he admits is uninformed (he states "I’ll say straight up that I don’t know everything Rob Slager knows about all this", and we've seen how little Slager knows), so I'm not going to address it.

Finally, he addresses the "hatebloggers".  Presumably he's talking about the people on this site, even though he uses terms like "stupid", "garbage", "hate" (twice!), "wannabe lawyers", and "losers".  Interesting that he accuses us of being hateful.  He knows "personally" how much we "all lie", but cites no examples.  He says that we leave out details to make people look bad, when he left out the fact that Selectmen routinely approved payouts after they had been made, and left out the possibility that the DA's investigation might be legit.  All in all, he basically lashes out like a 6-year-old who had a toy taken away. 

It's sad, really.  Shooter has fallen a long way since his first post.  He has turned into a mini-Slager, using many of the same tactics, and hiding behind the shield of "This is my editorial opinion, so I don't need to post facts".  He's selectively including (or not) certain facts.  He's repeating things like "hateblogger" while hurling insults of his own.  There have been several minor changes made to the article since it was posted, none of which were noted (though this may have been Slager's doing).  He made himself the news, by spending the first 30% of the post talking about himself.  All of these things are tactics of Slager's that I pointed out months ago.  I don't think he's the same person, but I do think he's learning from the "master"

I am only here for a minute.  I didn't even read one word of anything any of you have posted.

I just wanted to say I think it is awful how all of us who want the best for Wareham and Onset are being fooled by those who really truely are only in it for the all mighty dollar.   Please consider who really wants what we want.  Please don't be fooled.

PinkPanther wrote:

I meant to say hi to liz.  :)

hiya pink i an banned from the other site so ill only be able to chat here....