#1 2009-12-31 13:43:00
I'd like to respond to the recent information on the library settlement. As usual, the truth, in this town, is stranger than fiction.
TRUTH:
The fact is that after the executive session of December 16th, when the issue of signing the settlement release agreement was stated as a reason for the session, I notified the library lawyers and asked to find out from K and P if the BoS had signed it so we could be done with this litigation.
I received an email a couple of days later saying they could not get K and P or Atty. Montgomery (insurance co. lawyer) to respond to their inquiries. They thought that was odd since failing to respond to inquiries had not been the case throughout the litigation. On Dec. 22, I got another email saying they still could not get an answer to their question.
On December 28th, I sent our lawyers this comment from the tin foil hat Sunday night chat: "By: robertslager on 12/27/09
OK. I hate giving info in this forum, but what the heck. Word from my library sources is that the settlement has collapsed because selectmen will not sign it. Selectmen will not confirm a rumored vote that allegedly occured in executive session last week. That executive session was called to discuss potential criminal activity."
This was the first our lawyers had heard of this!!! It was the first that anyone from the library litigation (Friends, Trustees and Foundation) had heard of this!! Our attorneys called K and P's Atty. Randazzo and Atty. Montgomery again basically demanding a response this time.
On December 29th I sent our lawyers this: According to a recent tabloid article, our BoS chair, Bruce Sauvageau is quoted as saying:
“Now that the blogs have made this public, presumably because the attorneys representing the library groups have provided the information to those involved, I will confirm that a vote of the selectmen did in fact take place during an executive session meeting held last Tuesday,” Sauvageau said.
The Observer first learned of the executive session meeting from a library source who said the information came from the attorney representing the former trustees and the Friends of the Wareham Free Library."
Today, we have been informed by our lawyers that in fact the BoS are not signing the agreement. We have also been told that the BoS have "relieved" K and P Atty. Randazzo from her duties on this case and have requested another attorney from K and P to take over. (Atty. Corbo who did most of the library litigation but took an early maternity leave, has left the firm of K and P so she will not be taking the case back on.) It is my assumption that the reason our lawyers had so much trouble trying to get an answer was because of this K and P shake up.
MY FINAL COMMENT: The case is over. It was dismissed from the courts in October after the 60 day waiting period following the August 3 mediation. The agreement is binding. The transcript for the case was posted on this blog for all to see. All parties and lawyers agreed to the terms. Period. Our lawyers tell us that this does not mean the settlement has "collapsed" in any way. The settlement is legally binding even without the signatures of the BoS.
This is what I find very interesting. The BoS voted in EXECUTIVE SESSION not to sign the document. That information was revealed on the Sunday night blog by the tacky tabloid writer. Bruce then covers himself and the fact that private exec. session information was leaked to the tabloid by saying "“Now that the blogs have made this public, presumably because the attorneys representing the library groups have provided the information to those involved, I will confirm that a vote of the selectmen did in fact take place during an executive session meeting held last Tuesday.”
He presumes falsely. As I said, our lawyers and none of the library people knew about the vote in executive session until we read it on the tabloid's Sunday chat. And we all know that the Sunday chat comment was posted on this site which is how the "blogs" have made it public. This means that the only way the information could have been made public is if the BoS violated the executive session when they told the tabloid writer about it. Executive session, by its very nature, should remain private while a matter is still in litigation.
What is also significant is the final sentence in that quote that was added later by the tacky tabloid writer to cover himself for revealing exec. session information. That sentence reads: "The Observer first learned of the executive session meeting from a library source who said the information came from the attorney representing the former trustees and the Friends of the Wareham Free Library."
Since our lawyers, and none of the library people knew about it, who could this phantom library source be who said the info came from our attorney??? (By the way, the Friends have a separate attorney from the trustees.) What I have been saying all along is that there is no "library source." That would also mean that the embezzlement/money laundering/loan sharking/copy machine/used book sale scheme is as false as the "library source's" claim that our attorney gave anyone the info on the settlement signatures. No library source? No truth to the scheme. Simple as that. I've already proven that the copy machine caper and the used book sale scheme could not have happened on another thread. Apparently there was a reason the brown ledger had to disappear!! It never existed.
The stated reason the BoS did not sign the agreement is that they want to further investigate the allegations. The hard drive from Mary Jane Pillsbury's computer was copied again and the taxpayers are paying for the forensic review of the hard drive which will show absolutely nothing in relation to the "scheme" or to any sort of illegal activity because none has ever occurred. The hard drive was copied on the same day the taxpayers paid a private locksmith to put a second lock on the library director's door. Oh, and don't forget, that was AFTER Brenda was seen sitting at that computer in the library!!! (FYI-the police chief's, the accountant's, and Mark Gifford's hard drives were also copied. $$$$$ for another computer audit round??)
So, citizens and taxpayers of Wareham, the case is finished. The town will pay the $40,000 for our legal bills and our lawyers will send the town the $50,000 we agreed upon. End of story. Case closed.
This incident speaks volumes about the BoS and the tacky tabloid writer. You can form your own opinions.
Offline
#2 2009-12-31 13:52:46
Sorry, this is my final post, I promise!!
The tabloid quotes Bruce, the law student: "Sauvageau said the town will honor all other aspects of the agreement, which was reached through non-binding mediation in August.
“We will comply with the court’s degree but we will not sign the agreement for the reasons I have previously stated,” he said."
It's the court's DECREE Bruce, not the court's DEGREE. Hope you pass that bar exam!!
Starting tomorrow, I will be amongst the people who have made the New Year's resolution to never read or refer to the tabloid again. So, forgive me please for having to make this final comment but I could not resist!!!
Last edited by Nora Bicki (2009-12-31 15:47:49)
Offline
#3 2009-12-31 14:46:51
Thank you for bringing this to the public's attention, Nora.
I hope that the District Attorney's office will launch a full investigation into this serious misconduct on the part of the selectmen, because it is obvious now that they violated the law by leaking executive session information to their pet lackey reporter - information that they were bound by the law to not discuss outside of executive session.
For this serious violation, they should all tender their resignations immediately.
Offline
#4 2009-12-31 15:09:22
My, my. It didn't take long to correct that typo!!! That'll be the last editing I'll ever do for the tacky tabloid!!!
Here is the revision: “We will comply with the court’s decree but we will not sign the agreement for the reasons I have previously stated,” he said.
LOL!!!
Offline
#5 2009-12-31 15:12:16
Thank you, Nora, again for letting us hear the truth. Without this outlet, we would never had known the complete and honest facts. We appreciate that you take the time to inform us.
If we have a three day storm this weekend and if the roads are as nasty as during the last storm, someone should organize a protest in front of the town hall with signs that read, "End all litigation and use the money for services we should be receiving." If they can protest in other countries why can't we do it here? And, call the media, all of them.
Offline
#6 2009-12-31 15:19:10
Good afternoon - until I read about the perfidy of the BoS.
Questions.
For Nora: In order to implement the settlement agreement, is it necessary for the BoS to sign the agreement? What does "we will comply with .... but wil not sign the agreement" mean, exactly? Seems like an odd comment, but then, consider the source.
(Aside to Nora; welcome to the rag-free regiment. I took Molly's advice on August 1 (OK, two teeny-weeny exceptions, one of which was the library fantasy conjured up by the Halifax alchemist). It is the only way to go.)
For y'all: You may recall that there have been issues with the BoS and their ongoing trampling of the Open Meeting Law. My take on the ES on 12/16/09 is that the vote, any vote, on the library settlement is illegal. You can go into ES to discuss litigation, true enough. BUT, the litigatiion in this case is over & done. If there is a sentiment among some, or all, of the Board members that they should not sign the agreement, that's fine. If, that is, IT IS DISCUSSED AND/OR VOTED UPON IN AN OPEN, PROPERLY POSTED MEETING. Voters & taxpayers ought to be outraged, as usual, at the overarching arrogance of this group, which feels quite comfortable conducting the Town's business behind closed doors. This vote should have taken place in an open meeting where the thoughts & opinions of the individual members on the subject are expressed in public.
So, here's the question: Am I wrong?
Please let me know if you think that I have missed something here.
Meanwhile,
April 6, 2010
Did you realize that it is 96 days away? a mere 96 days?
FOCUS !!!
TAKE BACK WAREHAM.
Offline
#7 2009-12-31 15:41:38
notalawyer wrote:
Questions.
For Nora: In order to implement the settlement agreement, is it necessary for the BoS to sign the agreement? What does "we will comply with .... but wil not sign the agreement" mean, exactly? Seems like an odd comment, but then, consider the source.
All I know is our lawyers said it is not necessary since the case was dismissed by the courts. Once the 60 days ran out, there was no going back to make changes. I believe that even if they tried to take further action on those funds, the court's decision still stands. The Foundation keeps the money that was transferred to it. The Friends keep the $75,000.
Of course, since we can prove the source of ALL of those funds, and none came from embezzlement/money laundering/loan sharking/copy machine/used book sale schemes, there is no doubt in my mind that the money can never be touched by this BoS.
Offline
#8 2009-12-31 15:50:21
Notalawyer, you may have a valid point, and someone should call the AG office and ask.
Offline
#9 2009-12-31 18:42:28
All good stuff here.
Don't they have to post an open meeting...open that meeting, announce they're going into executive session, state the purpose, and announce whether they'll be returning to open session?
Also, the meeting just prior to 12/16, I believe they had a closed door meeting (before the Selectmen's Mtg.), where only "select" people were allowed in, and papers were signed, which was not posted...and this IMMEDIATELY followed being "reprimanded" by the DA for ES violations. Also, I don't believe they have done as the DA's office ordered in the letter to the BOS https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bz … MDVh&hl=en
It's in our hands. We need to vote them...
OUTINAPRIL
P-SPAN
TAKEBACKWAREHAM
April 6, 2010
Offline
#10 2009-12-31 18:57:45
Nora ~ what would we have done without you. The library, oh, it's just a place to go to get a book to read or look something up. No longer. I'm sure we already knew that, but you have brought the word LIBRARY to hold a new meaning. I can't think of anything I have read or anyone who I may have spoken to that has explained the workings of the library like you have.
I am honored to say that I have met you and your husband. I am so proud of your gutsy attitude when someone spoke down against the library and the people that worked there.
You have been our tour guide. You told us how the library, Friends & Trustee's function. So many things we never knew. I guess we were just too lazy to question anything ~ why would we, everything was working fine. Well, until the BOS decided to politicize the library. Thanks to you, the facts have been spread out for everyone to read. Thank you, thank you, thank you, Nora Bicki!
Now, this is only my opinion or thought about the selectmen signing the agreement. Bruce said they will abide by it, but will not sign it. I have the feeling that they KNOW they must obey this agreement as it was the court's decision. But in the same token, it was the COURT'S decision, not theirs.
So, by NOT signing the agreement - it clearly tells the people of Wareham that they do not agree with the court's decision. Therefore, no selectman's signature will be found on that paper. It is a game that kids play in first grade! I'm not that concerned about their signatures anyway.
What does scare me is that they want a new attorney from K & P. Is this about the library or the alledged "potential criminal activity" that caused them to go illegally into an executive session?
Offline
#11 2009-12-31 19:16:15
Nora…..Maybe the library source is Marcia. She and Brenda are really tight. Brenda could have told Marcia and then Marcia told Bobo.
Offline
#12 2009-12-31 19:20:30
By: robertslager on 12/31/09
Nora is absolutely cracking me up. She's now claiming that nobody in the library lobby knew about the selectmen's vote until today so therefore I had no library source and therefore the library scandal story isn't true.
This woman is unbelievable. I heard about the vote from a library source last week. I mentioned it during live chat. I called Brenda Eckstrom on Monday to see if I could work it into a story. She wouldn't comment, saying she won't discuss anything from executive session. Then I called Sauvageau and left a message. We spoke the next day. He told me he knew for a fact that opposing counsel had been informed about the vote and since the story had already been leaked from the other side he would happy to comment. He also noted the same thing happened right after the settlement had been reached. There was supposed to be a gag order on the settlement, but the library lobby ran to the Standard-Times immediately. Bicki was quoted extensively in the S-T story.
I swear on the lives of my daughters that I hadn't spoken to anyone on the Board of Selectmen nor the town administrator when I made the comment on live chat. I'm actually starting to feel sorry for Bicki. She appears absolutely desperate at this point to convince everyone the library scandal story isn't real. Well, all I can say about that is she's be in for one heck of a suprise very soon. And not even she will be able to spin this one.
Nora this is bobo's pathetic response to your facts.
Offline
#13 2009-12-31 19:21:56
So bobo why did you let Bruce say that a blogger had leaked the story when it was you on your Sunday chat . It appears no where else but from you
Offline
#14 2009-12-31 19:25:49
Bobo's ever changing words. I thought bobo you said you were not scooped and to read the print edition. I read it and guess what? Nothing now you changed to:
Double, oh. We were scooped on the Bliss settlement? The amount of the settlement was reportedly $30,000. DeFelice doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
Oh my head
Offline
#15 2009-12-31 19:35:32
Interesting that you say that, Marny. I learned today from someone who spoke with Marcia that she had been in the hospital for at least 10 days. But this is what bothers me. NONE of the library staff were notified that their immediate boss was out of touch and not available. What would have happened if there had been an emergency?
I don't understand that kind of management behavior. What dept. head takes time off for whatever reason without letting their employees they are in charge of, know they are away? Double locks on her office door. Claiming that the Friends won't give her funding when she was told at a Friends meeting in front of Cruz that in January, the Friends will have more cash to help her. Not letting staff know you are away (and when a certified letter comes from the Mass Board of Library Commissioners, she's not there to get it and doesn't answer emails or phone calls because, of course, she is in the hospital although no one is aware of that until after the fact!!). NOT my idea of a good manager.
We were informed that today, the town has finally advertised for a Library Director. Let's hope they get it right this time. (It's called Google, folks, not brain surgery!) The staff is woefully overworked and the morale is understandably at the lowest point I have ever seen. The new TA hasn't even bothered to take a stroll over to the building to see what it looks like!! Of course, the first time Sanguinet entered the building was to lay people off, cut the hours of many of the staff, and let part timers go completely. So my expectations are not exactly high here.
Bornof--thanks for your kind words. As you know, I believe education and libraries are the backbone of any civilization, and my volunteer efforts since I have moved to Wareham have been mostly geared towards the library. I don't regret a moment of that work and dedication. I still think it is a fantastic library with wonderful staff, Friends, Foundation members, and former trustees!! With good management, support from elected officials, more staffing, and a solid budget, the library can once again attain its past glory.
Have the new trustees even bothered to meet yet? No library director. Certification in peril (even though Pacheco might get the bill passed, the library has in no way met the books and materials requirement of approximately $45,000. Thanks to Dick Wheeler's paddlethon last year, we were able to meet that requirement. But we won't get a pass on it this year.) By the way, the (unfriendly, according to Brenda) Friends have already supplied about $20,000 of that amount towards the books and materials requirement for this fiscal year.
Last edited by Nora Bicki (2009-12-31 19:38:13)
Offline
#16 2009-12-31 21:31:07
Time for comic relief !.......
Yesterday I attended a yearly gathering of people who are "hooked on books": writers, publishers, book dealers,...and "biblioholics" like me who keep them profitable.
The first part of the event is academic: people read papers on a previously agreed upon topic; the second part is convivial, which is to say we gather at
the bar and tell stories..
This year's topic wqs "Literary Hoaxes". The lead paper was a revisit to the many accounts attributed to Baron Munchhausen in the late 19th century, but the last presentation focussed on the 1947 UFO hoax in Roswell New Mexico, which lost credulity for thirty years but was then revived by a collection of paranoid whackos who tried..and are still trying.... to make it seem as if the US Air Force is covering up UFO visits that are a threat to the US. Some call it "Loony Lit".
During "Part 2" of this gathering of folks who are hooked on books, I found myself in a cluster of Boston area book publishers who were exchanging stories about a weird guy who approaches them every year with the manuscript of a book which the author feels must be published in order to " save America from extra-terrestrials".
They compared stories of his annual visits: He comes with a tote-bag full of charred bits and pieces that he collected after witnessing an actual UFO landing. These publishers took turns telling how this kook dribbled spittle out of the corners of his mouth as he described his "up close" experiences with people from outer space. One publisher had even committed to memory the last scene in the book : " ....I am the only person in the world who has made physical contact with outer space beings. I have to ask, Why have they chosen me? At the risk of being immodest, I have a sense that they have identified me as a relentless searcher for truth, and I will never cease to live up to that ideal".
Wow! But then the publisher continued with the final lines of this "book that will save America"......."The ground under me trembled as the space craft's engines roared....the smell of the engines reminded me of the smell of my Lionel trains as a kid.....I was overcome by the compliment that had been paid to me as the only Earthling to have shaken the hand of someone from another planet....I would dedicate my life to making people realize that "we are not alone". So far I have been met with derision and disdain except from my twin daughters ,but I will not give up .......The truths I hold must be shared...."
I'd just listened up to this point, when I asked, "Where's this guy from?"
A publisher who moved here from Kansas last summer chimed in, "He's from Nova Scotia....Halifax, he said.."
That, of course was quickly corrected by "the natives"........"No Charlie...There's a town called Halifax less than 40 minutes from your office in Boston."
I'd been silent until then....The next half hour was mine, as I regaled them with stories that reinforced their view of this guy as a total whacko.
What a wonderful way to end my sorry relationship with this delusional, poisonous individual !....
Offline
#17 2009-12-31 21:47:57
This man needs to be committed. He is mentally ill. Imagine how his girls will grow up. Very sad. I laughed at this story, but then I felt very sad for two little girls.
Offline
#18 2009-12-31 22:18:16
I think Robert Slagers girls will be just fine. Matter of fact I think they will be proud when they hear or read about how their dad was brave enough to try for reasons still unknown to me, to stop some of the corruption in this cute little seaside town known as Wareham.
They will hear it from our children and grandchildren.
New years wish. Stop blaming everything on the Board of Selectmen. You guys know there were many problems.
Things had to change.
Bry, I am so sorry you are sad. :(
I will be in touch baby girl.
Offline
#19 2009-12-31 23:09:50
Robert must not think much of his daughters to swear upon their lives his delusions and lies.
Someone call the authorities and get his kids out of the house...NOW!!!
Offline
#20 2009-12-31 23:31:54
He does it all the time
Offline
#21 2010-01-01 10:41:11
I am so tired of Mr. Slager, PinkPanther, and others consistantly blabbing about corruption in Wareham. Where is the proof? Has anyone at all been charged, tried, or convicted? This BOS has spent over a half million dollars and yet nothing, absolutley nothing has been legitimately proven as corruption.
Yes, they've fired municipal workers. But not one employee has been charged with corruption. What they were fired for was a difference over job performance and over the Selectmen's perception of how this town should function. Not corruption.
There have been no studies done by any professional organization ( DOR, DA, IRS, State Ethics, or any other professional group that undertakes these kinds of studies) that prove that the way Wareham has engaged its services or record keeping were out dated, out of line, or done in a poor manner. Did the DOR ever come in and say the way our accounting methods were handled were not appropriate? No. Only that the new book keeper has changed the accounting method to the way she was used to it being done. Every business does the same. When a new person comes on board, they may change the methodology to their liking but it does not necessarily mean the way it was done before was "corrupt". A new manager most always comes in and makes changes. That's the nature of the beast. That doesn't mean there was corruption. Or that the way it was done before was wrong.
Corruption needs to be proven and shown to be so with good hard evidence. Where is the evidence? We've seen absolutely none, nada, nothing.
So stop this crap about corruption until you can show either by concrete evidence or you can show by filing appropriate charges, that there is corruption in Wareham.
Is there the normal everyday happenings that need to be corrected? Absolutley. But that is the responsibility of a good Town Administrator who gets paid a lot of money to do the job.
If Pink Panter and Mr Slager, have proof of corruption then please let us see the proof or take the action that will end it by filing charges. Until then, please stop spewing this crap. And stop giving this town a bad reputation by your constant ranting about corruption.
And yes, I think of Mr. Slager's daughters as they look over his life in retrospect and hear them saying, "Our dad saw people only as corrupt and evil, he chose not see all the good that the majority of people have . What a shame that he let negativity feed him, that it ate away at him. He missed out on a good life because he was so obsessed with correcting something that was not his job. He should have gone to school and gotten a degree in public administration if he wanted to be in control to effect change. Instead, he became a poor journalist who couldn't do his homework, but instead relied on misinformation provided by others who also don't do their homework, who rely on gossip as fact or who rely on misperception as being real."
Last edited by Maturevoter (2010-01-01 10:44:00)
Offline
#22 2010-01-01 10:51:08
It's a new year! First, No more discussion of certain people and their lack of intelligence, skills, and character!
It's time to forget about what we cannot change and focus on what we can! We need new leadership for Wareham. We need to wake up the people that simply have ignored their right to vote! We need to do our civic duty and shine a bright light on the problems created in Wareham by a lack of fiscal responsibility, accountability, and poor personnel skills. Today is the day we gear up Take Back Wareham!
2010 is going to be a great year!
Offline
#23 2010-01-01 11:13:20
You're absolutely right, Larry. Will there be an organizational meeting soon so we can get organized?
Offline
#24 2010-01-01 15:33:46
Maturevoter - Bravo!
The word corruption has become, unfortunatley, a sort of one-size-fits-all catchphrase. Don't like your property tax bill? - must be corruption. Water bill? sewer bill? motor vehicle excise? same, same, same.
Don't like the way the street is ploughed? corruption. And on, and on, and on.
I have worked for a large, international corporation, a large regional bank, for both state & local governments, and had my own businesses. The many employees in those venues were honest, hardworking individuals who did their best in a wide variety of circumstances. Oh sure, there were a few exceptions - the key word there is "few", as in damn few.
Yet, it seems, that if someone doesn't get their way these days, the first thing to do is scream about "corruption". And what fuels this type of response to government at all levels? Secret dealings. You know, such as a Board of Selectmen who insist and persist in governing behind closed doors.
OK, Larry, I accept your admonition. As a New Year's Resolution, I will strive to be less critical of the BoS and you-know-who. Because, you have precisely identified the proper course between now and April 6. I reserve the right, however, to be allowed to point out the nature of the emperor's new clothes, when appropriate.
But..
FOCUS
APRIL 6 (no need to append the year anymore, is there?)
TAKE BACK WAREHAM !!!
Happy New Year to all.
Offline
#25 2010-01-01 17:03:42
Pink is Slager's feminine side. I am sick of all of his sides.
Offline
#26 2010-01-01 23:06:43
PinkPanther wrote:
I think Robert Slagers girls will be just fine. Matter of fact I think they will be proud when they hear or read about how their dad was brave enough to try for reasons still unknown to me, to stop some of the corruption in this cute little seaside town known as Wareham.
They will hear it from our children and grandchildren.
New years wish. Stop blaming everything on the Board of Selectmen. You guys know there were many problems.
Things had to change.
Bry, I am so sorry you are sad. :(
I will be in touch baby girl.
Pink Panther, you need to step back and look at the whole picture. Slager has not tried to stop corruption in Wareham. He has never told the truth about anything he has reported. His alledged sources are in a happy place in his mind. He has continued to disrupt this town with NONSENSE. He can't write about anything without causing hurt to the residents of Wareham. I can tell you right now that my children, grandchildren and great grandchildren will not be singing sweet praises of Robert Slager. The only reason you are pro Slager is because you have been telling him stories yourself. This is a cute little seaside town, but let me highlite the word LITTLE. It doesn't take much to figure out who some bloggers are. Understand me now?
I can not speak for the other bloggers, but I feel they will agree that Wareham has had some problems. Every town, city or business does. But, when you have a board that is so power hungry that they will not listen to the "common folk" of Wareham who may have a solution for a problem - then that's where the problem lies - with the current BOS. You support the BOS because you have been giving them little ditties on a particular town department and more. Do you really think that is something to be proud of?Like I said, step back and look at the picture. The residents of Wareham can't get an appointment to speak to the BOS members or the ITA, but you can. Do you really think that is fair? I call it sleazy.
Some things have to change, I agree with that. But, if you can't be open and honest with what you run to your "pals" with, then maybe the best change would be for you to leave Wareham. Your words "You guys" has a very Brockton Brenda sound to it. Are you understanding me yet?
Yes, Dan - we do have rats and snakes to watch out for.
Offline
#27 2010-01-02 08:35:22
Yes, my dear Bornof...and moles too!
Offline
#28 2010-01-02 11:49:59
Your words "You guys" has a very Brockton Brenda sound to it. Are you understanding me yet?
Nah, it would have been "youse guys". lol.
Offline
#29 2010-01-02 11:54:49
WantToSeeChange wrote:
Your words "You guys" has a very Brockton Brenda sound to it. Are you understanding me yet?
Nah, it would have been "youse guys". lol.
I figured it was meant to be spelled that way but she just made a typeo. And, she is friends with Brenda.
Offline
#30 2010-01-02 12:24:11
bornofwareham wrote:
WantToSeeChange wrote:
Your words "You guys" has a very Brockton Brenda sound to it. Are you understanding me yet?
Nah, it would have been "youse guys". lol.
I figured it was meant to be spelled that way but she just made a typeo. And, she is friends with Brenda.
Oh, I didn't know that. Other than the people who use their real names (and I don't know half of them either), I really don't know who anyone is on this site yet. I'm a bit of a newbie.
Offline
#31 2010-01-02 14:50:20
Same here, but this one I am pretty sure of. I don't know who most people are but I enjoy reading their blogs. You pretty much know how certain bloggers will react to things. I have learned a lot here. Oh, and when I said "she just made a typeo", that was a typo by me.
Offline
