I always get a kick out of people criticizing me for living out of Town for 30 years.

Does that negate the fact that I was born, raised, educated in Wareham, served as a Police Officer and held the highest office in Wareham as a Selectman?

Apparently to some...thankfully not to many.

Someone wrote what would their Town think of them if they wrote thirty years after they left offering advise about the workings of their Town. Well, based on your background and qualifications, it may depend on whether people want a feeling for history and the problems that the Town has faced for over 40 years and continues to face.

So...when did you serve the Town of Wareham as a cop or firefighter and when were you a Selectman, Mr. Flaherty?

When you answer those questions with facts that support your expertise, we may be able to establish a dialogue. Until then, it's like a mechanic speaking about a car with a kid that  read one issue of Popular Mechanics.

I may not agree with you, but I do enjoy your posts.

=====================================
Dan O'Connell wrote:

I always get a kick out of people criticizing me for living out of Town for 30 years.

...

So...when did you serve the Town of Wareham as a cop or firefighter and when were you a Selectman, Mr. Flaherty?
=====================================

Hello Dan.

I think you are confusing me with "mike9f".  In fact I went out of my way to be clear in bold and underlined type when I wrote: " None of the commentary below is mine (a different "Mike" offers his thoughts)".

I'm pretty sure that mike9f is Michael Schneider, who also posts here.  Perhaps he could verify that, and I apologize in advance for putting him on the spot.  But he posted some valuable information elsewhere that really helps our discussion here.

That said, Dan, I did not criticize you for not living in Wareham for 30 years.  Mike9f did.  But I do think the context he provides is important, for good or ill, as is your clarification of it.

My point was/is that it is simply nonsense to claim that there is no such group called "Take Back Wareham", when Larry McDonald and yourself (and others) are demonstrably co-founders/charter members of it.

That's all.  That, and I'm scratching my head on why there is so much effort from you all to deny it.  Most folks are proud of the groups they associate themselves with.

As an aside, I recall when Wareham Week was first started, a local paper claimed that it would essentially be controlled by "Take Back Wareham".  I think the existence of this post and this blog here helps bust that myth, and I applaud Wareham Week for allowing it.

Information...Information...Information!  From ALL sides!

Never enough.  It is how we all learn.

Thank you for your response, Mike and the clarification of who made the statements.

Take Back Wareham, to my knowledge, is simply a slogan used by a group of people who want significant political change in Wareham.

I own a T-shirt that reads "Take Back Wareham".

I bought it at cost, no profit was made by anyone buying the shirts.

I am unaware of any "leaders of Take Back Wareham. I don't have real knowledge of who owns or runs any web sites with that name.

I don't know of any organization, officers, or members of Take Back Wareham.

Most of the people who use the Take Back Wareham slogan are not running for office. In fact, I don't know of anyone running for office implying that they are a member of any organization called Take Back Wareham.

Take Back Wareham, as a slogan, does not seek or raise monies, that I am aware of...it does not exist in any local or State offices as an organization.

So...essentially, Take Back Wareham was a slogan that has been used, but is no longer used, by the people who originally embraced the name for change.

The only time I ever hear anyone or see anyone mention Take Back Wareham is on sites other than the original concept site of Warehamobserver.com.

I hope I have answered your questions.

I promise that I will never lie to you or anyone else who asks me a legitimate question.

Ask me any question and I will answer it honestly.(Discretion limits some questions :))

It was a pleasure to have this discussion with you.

Mr. Flaherty,

I am not sure you got the message, but here it is again: There is no organization or group called “Take Back Wareham”.  No amount of speculation or assumption is going to change that. To claim anything different is simply a lie. Your collaborative effort with Michael Schneider is a waste of time. The next time you “have a message for me”, please use my email. I am sure you have it.

=========================================
Dan O'Connell wrote:

So...essentially, Take Back Wareham was a slogan that has been used, but is no longer used, by the people who originally embraced the name for change.
=========================================

Dan, on this we will have to agree to disagree.  I agree with Mike9f when he said that certain portions of your TBW brainstorming session "speaks for itself". 

I think they ring true, then as well as now. 

=========================================
Dan O'Connell wrote:

It was a pleasure to have this discussion with you.
=========================================

Likewise.

Take Care,
Mike

=========================================
Larry McDonald wrote:

The next time you “have a message for me”, please use my email.
=========================================

Larry, you publicly asked for help and I publicly gave you help.  That is what blogging is all about. 

In the future, if you want an answer offline then simply specify that, and I'll respect that.  Otherwise, expect a public response.  That way, we all learn.

=========================================
Larry McDonald wrote:

No amount of speculation or assumption is going to change that. To claim anything different is simply a lie. Your collaborative effort with Michael Schneider is a waste of time
=========================================

See my previous post to Dan.

While on the subject of lies though, I noticed that when I recently asked some questions publicly at a BOS meeting, you said of me elsewhere...

=========================================
Larry McDonald wrote:

"ladies and gentleman....meet the spokesperson for mwf and the current regime...Mike Flaherty, aka Fogcutter".
=========================================

Sir, as flattering as that would be (MWF is one group actually taken seriously), it is simply not true. 

I am not a spokesperson for MWF, nor am I "collaborating" with ANYONE on issues of town government in Wareham.  But I'll give you the benefit of a doubt, and consider that maybe you were being facetious.  Were you?

The truth is that I am able to frankly and candidly explore and debate town issues and seek the "unvarnished truth" (as some put it) precisely because I am not affiliated with any groups/factions in town - and the baggage that comes with that.

You're a bright guy, Larry.  Think about that for a moment.

I'll take the rest offline with you.

Mike Flaherty, wrote:

I'm pretty sure that mike9f is Michael Schneider, who also posts here.  Perhaps he could verify that, and I apologize in advance for putting him on the spot.  But he posted some valuable information elsewhere that really helps our discussion here.

Yes, Mr. Flaherty, I am Mike9f. I am also a  founder of Move Wareham Forward along with Ellen Begley. I am also the owner of the www.movewarehamforward.com web site.

Mr. O'connell, The statement I made that you have not lived in this town for over three decades is merely stating a fact. People can decide for themselves if it is relevent to your role with "Take Back Wareham". 

Mr. McDonald, I 'm not clear about what you are referring to when you state,"Your collaborative effort with Michael Schneider is a waste of time." Can you or Mr. Flaherty clarify what collaborative effort you are talking about?

Mike Flaherty:

Simply put...the posts that you refer to are so old that it seems like me in the winter time!!

Take Back Wareham was a slogan used last July or August.

There is no Take Back Wareham.

There is a group of people, a LARGE group of people, who are interested in saving Wareham.

They have no named organization...they are a grass roots  organization that has become very powerful. They don't need a name...they only need support from each other and the average voter.

That is why, after April 6TH, the complexion of the BOS will change, and the Moderator will probably be replaced.

After that, the group will continue until every single incompetent person that holds elected office is replaced. They are more committed and dedicated, have a vision of the future, and have more passion than the incumbents.

Just a fact Mike..no need for slogans.

I like you more than the other Mike, by the way.

You are smarter and willing to listen.

Hope to meet you someday.

Mr. Flaherty,

It is quite obvious that fog is not the only substance you have the ability to cut through :-)

“Fogcutter”..Mike Flaherty..or whatever you want to call yourself today..Your “quest for truth” has been “interesting”, if nothing else..What exactly makes you any less “affiliated”..than any of the people you continue to attempt to discredit? You are clearly a supporter of the current administration, “Mr. Halifax”, and “Move Wareham Forward”. It was clear when you created your “forum” and refused to “say” who you were..it was made crystal clear when you “came out” as “Mr. Non-Partisan” (golly gee) “I’m just looking for the facts, m’am”...but you conveniently disregard the facts that don’t suit you. If there are two sides of the political fence in Wareham..you’re obviously on “their side”. But, I’m sure you’re thrilled that you’re not mistaken as someone on “our side” (and I am too).

Maybe I should mention how I first joined your forum, and to date, I bet I posted there as much, or more, than anyone...well, except for you maybe (as “Fogcutter”)..while never “revealing” (to me anyway) that you were also the administrator. As “Fogcutter” your leaning’s were always “empathic” to “Mr. Halifax”..and you tended to be blind to the failing’s of our leader’s, and you were definitely against what you termed as “the fake Observer site”. Also, you initially refused to allow me to post using the screen name “PShooter”..which at the time was the screen name I used on multiple “blogs”, because you stated it was the name of a “real person” in town (insert joke here)..You finally “allowed” me to use the name “TakeBackWareham”..Also, initially on your site, you had a section where information pertaining to three “groups” was created..even though I was the only one posting from any of the “non-groups”..you removed the Take Back Wareham “section” (almost immediately) because there were no publically available names, “official” websites, etc. (though I suggested you use my site..and my email for contact - essentially, you agreed..Take Back Wareham was NOT an organization). Later you removed the section for CBW, because they didn’t respond to your request for information. I believe you then gave a deadline for MWF to give you some information you wanted, or you’d remove them as well (I bet it’s still there). I pretty much stopped visiting your site, as hardly anyone has ever posted there. Answer me this, was I ever “nasty” to anyone on your website, Mr. Flaherty/Foggy??.

Oh, and as far as whether there’s a group..organization, or whatever..called “Take Back Wareham”..well, you like to post all kinds of documents, and I know you follow the blog’s closely (all of them)..so, maybe you noticed awhile back I posted a link, etc. to the definition of what a PAC is..did you miss that one? Read it, and see if “we” fit the definition. I mean, how old is this argument? All you guys do is echo “Mr. Halifax” (how about a little originality??)..it’s just sad. No money is raised for ANY candidate..there is no “slate” of candidates, and aside from “Mr. Halifax’s” continued use of the phrase “Take Back Wareham” in his continuing efforts to discredit anyone who opposes the current administration..it is perhaps myself who has used the term the most. I chose it as the name for my website http://takebackwareham86bos.blogspot.com ..and I also add it as a “signature” on all my posts (which links to my website)..as well as choosing it as my screen name for your site. My site, as you know, is primarily a “warehouse” of public meeting videos. How negative is that? A “slogan” would be the best description of what “Take Back Wareham” is. If there ever is a group, PAC or whatever, called “Take Back Wareham” formed in the future, I’ll be first in line, and (at least a little) proud to say “I am Take Back Wareham”. Also, though I think it’s just a tad hypocritical to have posted as you did anonymously as Fogcutter, and then “demand” that other’s use their names, I’m sure you know my name, as do all those posting on Sunday Night’s “HatChat's”. I believe it is you who is being disingenuous, not I, (or “us”)...at least I’m open on which way I “lean”, maybe you should be too..Frankly, going round and round with you guys is about as much fun as poking myself in the eye. Think what you want, say what you want..it’s all white noise by now..Don’t forget to exercise your right, VoteApril6 & at Spring TM..(let me know if you need some help on how to vote ; )

No  unregistered/registered Political  Action Committees and no Take Back Wareham according to Dan O’Connell, Larry McDonald and Dave Dipietro on Mike Flaherty’s Wareham Week blog ?  No Take back Wareham? Maybe Dan O’Connell, Larry or Liz McDonald, Bob Brady, Dave Dipietro, or Steve Holmes would like to take a crack at myth busting these posts that clearly show otherwise. By the way, Searay240 is Steve Holmes, one of the current candidates for Selectmen supported by Take Back Wareham/CBW/ the Bill Whitehouse blog as demonstrated below:

2009-07-22 23:33:58

    Searay240 aka Steve Holmes

    PS I enjoy my boat thus the Name Searay240. I have told you all who I am and if

    you wanted to know my name you simpy look at the tape from the meeting, my

    name is Steve Holmes.

You and I are not anonymous hate bloggers, but VERY concerned citizens. I for one will chip in for the rental of the school for the meeting!!!

#1 2009-06-09 23:42:35

Searay240 aka Steve Holmes

Would you tone down the spouse name calling an cut out the profanity in support of a positive candidate fpor BOS

2009-06-10 07:39:38

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

Recalls and name calling will not win elections.There are large numbers of voters in this forum.People in this town are hurting, jobs are not being lost but taken away by this BOS and TA.The only way to reverse this is in the ballot box.So the poll question speaks for itself if you had a positive candidate that appeals to the general public and represents your views would you support that person by toning it down at least through the election cycle?

2009-06-12 21:36:25

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

I agree that the proper steps and toned down language will make this a credible process. We need the town residents to take this recall seriouly.

This group should band together with town resident and follow the proper procedures. Don't start soliciting and promoting candidates in my opinion that would not look good for the effort and give the other side one more issue to shoot us down.

If folks want to run, let them that's the freedom they have but we should not be picking candidates before we have even filled out the papers to recall the old BOS

Just my two cents

2009-06-12 23:24:04

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

While at dinner tonight with my wife, I began disussing some of te issues discussed in this forum.

She was aware of none of it, how many others out there are in the same boat, my bet is thousands.

Most don' read the Observer a fact that Slager repeated every week while begging for subscribers, we have never had the Courrier in our home and I am sure we are not alone, we don't get the S-T I believe the majority in town are not connected to any news outlet.

So unless you watch the cable show on Tuesday most residents are clueless the the happenings of this BOS

We need an instrument to get the word out

#5 2009-06-13 06:29:11

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

Does anyone have the "official" recall procedure? I have some good friends that run the Marketing arm of our firm and would volunteer to get the piece written on why we are looking to recall the BOS they would do an excellent job putting a positive spin on the recall movement

2009-06-16 22:00:41

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

I would think the following or something along these lines makes sense to me.

1 - Set up an oganizational meeting, date, time and location.

2 - Set the date 3 weeks in advance.

3 - Advertise the heak out of the meeting, S-T, the other local paper, WBSM, flyers etc.
Worthy news organizations will pick up the story and run with it.

4- If it's going to work we will have more than enough folks at the meeting to sign whatever needs to be signed.

5 - have sign up sheets at the meeting for the various tasks that have to be completed.

If not organized properly we will fail.Like others have said before me this needs to be done right or not at all.

The last thing we need is this to be taken as a joke. Because if its done half a+@+ then they will have all the power they need to finish ruining this town.

I would be more than happy to help with the organizing.

#11 2009-06-16 22:54:54

seagull

Searay is right - organize, and focus on the goal, and don't just plot against some guy who writes to inflame.  As for advertising - Do you have a FB page to reel in the high school contingency?  Twitter, anyone?  You could really benefit from having some savvy young people in your court who can get the word out, many times a day, about what to sign and where.  Gatemen games, Onset outside Marc Anthony's, how about the bar scene and the mall? 

Glad to see this board is becoming more focused on the real issues, and not the people who are just making noise. 

Is there anything that seasonal residents, who pay lots in taxes, can do to reverse the downward spiral that Wareham is in, and make it the paradise billw says it is but we outsiders know it isn't quite yet?  Anyone have ideas on how non-voters make our voices heard?

Offline

#12 2009-06-16 23:07:55

billw

seagull wrote:

Is there anything that seasonal residents, who pay lots in taxes, can do to reverse the downward spiral that Wareham is in, and make it the paradise billw says it is but we outsiders know it isn't quite yet?

Hah. You're not looking in the right places. I'll show you, if I have enough time before I get run out of town. That's not a joke.

Meanwhile, yes, help collect a master list of outrages, volunteer to wander door to door with a recall petition, shake down your friends for a few bucks to cover expenses and plan to bake something for our gatherings. I'm sure I'm forgetting something...

Last edited by billw (2009-06-17 02:00:07)

Offline

#13 2009-06-18 20:35:27

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

We had a similar problem here on Onset Ave a couple of summers ago.

We organized a meeting at the VFW, Chief Joyce and the new TA at the time came and listened to our concerns.

We learned that he had undercover officers operating in the ring. There was an officer I can't recall his name that took part in a special program and within a few weeks they had it cleaned up.

However at this point in time we have no permanent TA the BOS fired him probably for working with the citizens, the chief has left to go to another town. This BOS could care less about your problems.

Call the State Police next time they will come and help you.

Welcome to town, we came here for the same reasons.I know how you feel having gone through the same issues. You need to call the State Police eveyday and night you will get results.

To my fellow members take it easy on this person. I know what it like to come home on Onset Ave and have these drug thugs stop the traffic to do deals with guns out. Not pleasant especially with my 6 year old at the time with me in the car.

#13 2009-06-17 14:38:21

iliveinazoo

Anyone who has a Facebook page can set up another page, specific for this, during April's election Cara Winslow had a FB page for her campaign, if anyone knows her or who did the internet stuff for the campaign we can find out how to do it.

#11 2009-06-16 22:54:54

seagull

Searay is right - organize, and focus on the goal, and don't just plot against some guy who writes to inflame.  As for advertising - Do you have a FB page to reel in the high school contingency?  Twitter, anyone?  You could really benefit from having some savvy young people in your court who can get the word out, many times a day, about what to sign and where.  Gatemen games, Onset outside Marc Anthony's, how about the bar scene and the mall? 

Glad to see this board is becoming more focused on the real issues, and not the people who are just making noise. 

Is there anything that seasonal residents, who pay lots in taxes, can do to reverse the downward spiral that Wareham is in, and make it the paradise billw says it is but we outsiders know it isn't quite yet?  Anyone have ideas on how non-voters make our voices heard?

Offline

#12 2009-06-16 23:07:55

billw

seagull wrote:

Is there anything that seasonal residents, who pay lots in taxes, can do to reverse the downward spiral that Wareham is in, and make it the paradise billw says it is but we outsiders know it isn't quite yet?

Hah. You're not looking in the right places. I'll show you, if I have enough time before I get run out of town. That's not a joke.

Meanwhile, yes, help collect a master list of outrages, volunteer to wander door to door with a recall petition, shake down your friends for a few bucks to cover expenses and plan to bake something for our gatherings. I'm sure I'm forgetting something...

Last edited by billw (2009-06-17 02:00:07)

Offline

#13 2009-06-17 14:38:21

iliveinazoo

Anyone who has a Facebook page can set up another page, specific for this, during April's election Cara Winslow had a FB page for her campaign, if anyone knows her or who did the internet stuff for the campaign we can find out how to do it.

2009-06-20 07:31:45

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

The BOS could give a rip about Onset. Onset what is Onset? Oh ya it's that part of town where most events are held, where most tourist are attracted, where many residents pay taxes and only reside or use their property a few months a year but pay full taxes.

Having no law enforcement in the busiest time of the year...now that's progress Bruce and Slager can be proud of.

As word gets out people will just stay on 495/25 and bypass the chaos all together.

Revenue from the summer visitors will go down. People will be afraid to come here.

What am I saying we still have the Crime Watch folks, they advertise how crime ridden the town is with their office on our Main St. Maybe they will protect us.

And most people are talking about recalls over a computer audit? That computer stuff is the least of our problems!!

How about:

Public Safety
Unemployment
No economic development

Put my name on a sign

#3 2009-06-25 23:29:36

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

All they will do is hire the interim guy, andgive him the full pay for the job...reward for doing their dirty deeds. That's why the posting date is so short.

#3 2009-07-01 11:42:44

searay240 aka Steve Holmes

I aggree the first question is Town Business, the second was so-so, but the last question has no place in a Citizens forum at a BOS meeting. We are trying to garner support to replace these folks, any advancement we have made just took a few steps in reverse.

I think a public apology in the same forum it was asked would be in order. The problem is with the bi-weekly schedule this thing will fester for two more weeks, and with each day that goes by, an the negative publicity it will get will is not good.

You should post an apology on this site immediately.

In the interest of full discloser, this will be posted on another local website(s).

What is your point?

Is it dark when you look up inside yourself?

Wow, what a giant pile of posts that prove.....NOTHING. John/Mike Schneider (whichever name you want to use this week) and Mike Flaherty want you to believe there is a group called Take Back Wareham, but nothing they post proves anything except they have way too much time on their hands.

When I said a collaborative effort earlier, I think people can see what that means now.

Schneider, you didn't have courage to reach across and sit down with me (include you cohort Ellen in that too), so I consider you words as empty as the mission statement of MWF.

For the record, because it just doesn't seem to register with a conspiracy theorist like you, there is no Take Back Wareham.

Larry, why get so upset? The posts from Steve Holmes and your "Take Back Wareham" friends speak for themselves. People in this town are pretty smart. They know when they are being taken for a ride. Since you apparently can't offer anything of value to dispute the posts made on the www.Warehamobserver.com web site, why not let the readers decide for themselves? Are you now saying the site that these posts came from are not accurrate? These posts come come directly from the www.warehamobserver.com (not the newspaper). Isn't that the site that you proclaim as having accurrate and truthful information. Are you now saying these posts by Steve Holmes, candidate for Selectmen, are not accurate or truthful?

What about the post below?

2009-08-21 09:49:41
Molly
You are right Bob. And hey, I love the choir but the point I was trying to make is we need to get those people who are clueless.

Take a look at the blog threads that have only one comment or no extra comments. They total 75 for the no comment and 160 for an additional look see. So even here, we only have a handful of people.

When you tried to get the "community" together, look what happened. I know several people who decided not to go to the meeting when it became political with the rag and bos business. And since the meeting, there has been no movement forward. That's not a criticism. But maybe working behind the scenes is what needs to be done right now.

Why don't some of you who use your own name here, call a meeting of the choir? Or just invite the people you think are sympathetic to the cause? A private meeting where you can decide who comes to the meeting. Then get subcommittees to work on an election committee, a PR committee, a charter/mayor committee etc.???

Keep in mind that some people here don't want to come too far out of the blog closet for obvious reasons, but maybe would help behind the scenes.

I still say, educate people. And the way to do it is to show people how their taxes have been wasted. Hit people in their pocket books and they sit up and listen. Not too many people care about issues that don't impact their daily lives. For example, I know some people in town who couldn't have named our last chief of police. Do you think they care what's happening with this new interim guy? Or with a new chief? Same with the TA and ITA situation. McAulliffe who is what I have heard. Apathy plain and simple---until it has a dollar sign in front of it $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Raise the sewer fee? Cut sports from school because of no money? Increase your health care costs? Raise property taxes??

Remember how much press and notice the save our library signs got? Your'e Tax Dollars Are Being Wasted signs would wake up a few people.

I see the leaders on this site---Steve, Larry and Liz, Bob. We look to you. Team leaders?? I don't have the answers but as part of the choir I could bring a posse along with me to "sing along" as Bob said and I'm sure many people who blog on this site or just visit it could do the same.

By the way, Larry. I find it hard to swallow that anyone could possibly claim that the placement of non-binding referendum on the balot circumvents the will of the town meeting voters while supporting Steve Holmes who has openly supported the recall of the Board of Selectmen.  A recall circumvents the will of the town voters, Larry. So you are supporting a candidate who goes against everything you supposedly stand for. Must be convenenient for you at the moment I guess.

Here's a thought: Why not give your candidate a ring and let him know that some posts have been placed here by a voter that he may want to respond to. If you don't have his number handy, maybe Dan or Dave have it.

===================================
Larry McDonald wrote:

Wow, what a giant pile of posts that prove.....NOTHING."
===================================

Yes, that's right folks.  There's nothing to see here.  Move along now.

;-)

Mike Schneider (where to begin), I won’t respond (much) to your post above. One, because I’m sure you’ve read my response on the Courier to your claim that a recall “circumvents the will of the voter’s”..(no it doesn’t)…and two, you say your going to prove TBW’s an “organization”..or that the posts you copied do (I don’t think you, or they, did that..and since “we’re” not an “organization”..I KNOW you/they didn’t), but it’s clear your real intent was to make Selectman candidate Steve Holmes look bad..which leads to my real reason for this post. I find it both “troubling”..and “typical” that you have been named moderator of (by my count) three meeting’s since September. First, your “own” Move Wareham Forward meeting...claiming initially it was to be a “debate”, it certainly wasn’t. It was a BoS Mtg…a “day of citizen’s participation” (ask Jane)..she even stated afterward, it was never going to be a debate..and no one ever claimed it would be (but go watch the video of your introduction, that’s how it was presented)...(IMO) it was a political rally for the BoS/Moderator, timed just before Fall Town Meeting, and it was a failure...except maybe a little information was gained in the process..like your “journalist” buddy did for the candidates at OPL, I’ld give you a grade of “D+” on that meeting. Then (as far as I know) you moderated two recent CRC meeting’s. First and foremost (I think) a moderator should be impartial (or at the very least “perform” that way)..I won’t “attack” your moderating “performance’s”..I attended one of those meeting’s and have posted and watched the others. (IMO) You seemed to do an adequate job, though I may have noticed a “quick trigger” on occasion, when a “bad seed” attempted to voice an opinion or two. But, my point here is..you (in reality) are anything BUT impartial. I believe this is true of Mr. Donahue, as well...and if you watch closely, “hints” of this partiality exist, some more “obvious” than other’s..(extended speaking time for some...but not other’s, “vote count” issues,  twice taking votes to dissolve Town Meeting(s) ..and, yes..the “unruliness” – he does bear responsibility for that too..more than anyone, in fact) Also, for me at least..I am “uncomfortable” with the fact that he is married to a Selectwoman. I believe there’s an inherent “conflict of interest” there. You have to expect any moderator (probably) to NOT be totally impartial..we are all human, have some level of interest in town “politics” (or you probably wouldn’t be doing it)..and we all have opinion’s. But I do think having someone who is as close as possible to being truly impartial..and being well versed in the “rules” of “moderating”, is certainly an ideal to be strived for. Sadly, it is no surprise to me that you have been chosen as moderator, as it is obvious you have strong “political leaning’s”..so then, we are left to “hope” that you run a completely “clean” meeting. As far as the current Town Moderator, and his ability to run a “clean” meeting..I think he (usually) “acts” professionally, but there are “cracks”, in my opinion…a few examples of which I stated above (and are backed up by video, and “the record”). Citizen’s need to KNOW that there’s NEVER ANY chance of “meeting manipulation”…or even the appearance of it. I’m not so confident…and that’s why I’ll vote for Claire Smith.

Responding to you at all, Michael, is (I know) a fruitless effort..I’m sure we’ll never agree (on anything??) Sometimes, when reading your comments, I get the feeling you believe that if someone (usually specific someone’s) were to make a point you didn’t agree with (aka “anything they say”), and they happened to use fifty words to make their point, you’ld believe you’d “won” the “argument” if you responded with fifty-one words or more. I have no illusion’s that you’ll ever be anything but opposed to me, or those you insist on “grouping” me with. That’s fine, I consider them my friend’s, and I have no real problem being grouped with them anyway (we’re just not a PAC..and to suggest anything like that is a lie). We are all individuals (and voter’s), with differing opinions. We may have come to similar conclusions on the reason’s for some of the town’s problem’s, but just like anyone, we don’t always agree (and I wouldn’t expect to). On a side note, I’ve read some of your comments on affordable housing “funding” options, and such..and I believe you’ve shown “some level” of knowledge in that area (at least)..I truly hope you have something of value to offer the Affordable Housing Trust (though, as you know, I disagree with you on “Westfield”..and I hope that if the Town decides against it (finally), that you’ll help work toward suitable alternatives. I’ll accept what the voter’s decide (again), and I hope (even more) that you will too, as a member of the Trust. Thanks for listening…VoteApril6….

Mr. Flarherty   I’m a little confused with your criteria as to who is a member of this so called “group” called Take Back Wareham. The first person that alluded to this SLOGAN as a “group” was a certain writer from Halifax. He seemed to imply and still does that anyone who blogs on Mr. Whitehouse’s site is a member of the Take Back Wareham “group” Do you agree with this assumption?

Although I don’t blog on Mr. Whitehouse’s site I do read that site does that automatically make me a member of TBW?

 I have two friends that blog on this site does that automatically make them a member of TBW?

If I agree with some of the things I read on Mr. Whitehouse’s site does that make me a member of TBW?

If my friends express their dissatisfaction with the current BOS and want a change does that automatically make them a member of TBW?

I do not support all of the candidates that are running for re-election but I am voting for one who is running for re-election. Although I don’t own one of their t-shirts if I purchased and wore one of the t-shirts does that automatically make me a member of TBW group or just a citizen who thinks this SLOGAN express’s how I feel about SOME of the candidates.

I really have a problem when some people who make all inclusive statements implying everyone who blogs on Mr. Whitehouse’s site  think the same way about all issues. Some people also imply that just because someone blogs on his site they are automatically a Nazi or racist or somehow condone being a Nazi or being a racist. The two friends that I have that blog on that site are neither Nazis nor racist.

You say you are not part of any group. I personally believe you. From reading your posts you do tend to agree with some of the things MWF says but that doesn’t make you a member of MWF.  The people who blog on Mr. Whitehouse’s site are not an organized group they are simply people who have found a place to express their frustrations. It is also a place for people who may not want to blog to get information they can’t find anywhere else. I have been reading Mr. Whitehouse’s blog for awhile. In my opinion Take Back Wareham is a SLOGAN. It is a political SLOGAN. It expresses how some people feel about some of our local officials.

Pspan Wrote:

 “Mike Schneider (where to begin), I won’t respond (much) to your post above.”

Why not? I’m willing to read your responses. The posts are an accurate account of the birth of  “Take Back Wareham” and Steve Holmes involvement with Take Back Wareham. In addition, the posts above accurately reflect the views of Steve Holmes involvement and support of a meeting that restricted the voices of those with viewpoints different than his own. He even discussed the possibility of getting a marketing consultant involved that works for the same company he does. Why would a non-group need a marketing consultant?

Pspan wrote:

because I’m sure you’ve read my response on the Courier to your claim that a recall “circumvents the will of the voter’s”..(no it doesn’t)…”

Pspan, on this we will have to disagree. As I said previously, the readers can decide . Your groups claim that a non-binding ballot (Opinion poll) initiative is somehow a slap in the face of the voters at town meeting while claiming that a recall of elected officials (a binding measure), by a handful of voters that intentionally spread false rumors and innuendo in an attempt to overthrow the leadership  that was voted in by the larger voter base  is totally ridiculous.

Pspan wrote:

and two, you say your going to prove TBW’s an “organization”..or that the posts you copied do (I don’t think you, or they, did that..and since “we’re” not an “organization”..I KNOW you/they didn’t),

On this, we will have to disagree. As I said previously, the readers can decide.

 Pspan wrote:

“but it’s clear your real intent was to make Selectman candidate Steve Holmes look bad.”

Untrue, Pspan. My intent is to put factual information out there for people  to form their own opinions. Let me also remind you that I was at Town Meeting and personally witnessed Steve Holmes’ behavior.  Remember, it was Steve Holmes and his group that caused the intentional disturbance at town meeting. It was Steve Holmes and his group that intentionally tried to make John Donahue  look bad to further the agenda of your Take Back Wareham non-Pac and slate of candidates.

Pspane wrote:

.which leads to my real reason for this post. I find it both “troubling”..and “typical” that you have been named moderator of (by my count) three meeting’s since September.

Pspan, why would you have a problem with me moderating any meeting that was completely open and transparent to the public. If the real reason for your post was to express your displeasure that I moderated some meetings? Why not just say so? Why bury that fact in a  post that really only required one sentence? You have a right to express your opinion. I have no problem with that.

Pspan also wrote:

But, my point here is..you (in reality) are anything BUT impartial. I believe this is true of Mr. Donahue, as well...and if you watch closely, “hints” of this partiality exist, some more “obvious” than other’s..(extended speaking time for some...but not other’s, “vote count” issues,  twice taking votes to dissolve Town Meeting(s) ..and, yes..the “unruliness” – he does bear responsibility for that too..more than anyone, in fact)

Unlike Mrs. Smith, John Donahue has publicly addressed the controversial issues you have raised.  Has Claire Smith publicly admitted her involvement  in moderating a meeting of like-minded individuals that did not allow those with opposing viewpoints to speak? Regarding your statement that John Donahue bears responsilibity for the “unruliness” at town meeting. I respectfully disagree. It was Steve Holmes and Take Back Wareham that were responsible for the unruliness. I was there and witnessed it.

Pspan wrote:

But I do think having someone who is as close as possible to being truly impartial..and being well versed in the “rules” of “moderating”, is certainly an ideal to be strived for.

Pspan, You have just decribed John Donahue.

Pspan wrote:

As far as the current Town Moderator, and his ability to run a “clean” meeting..I think he (usually) “acts” professionally,

Pspan, how can you make the statement above when you also made the following statements:

Pspan wrote:”

“But, my point here is..you (in reality) are anything BUT impartial. I believe this is true of Mr. Donahue, as well...and if you watch closely, “hints” of this partiality exist, some more “obvious” than other’s..(extended speaking time for some...but not other’s, “vote count” issues,  twice taking votes to dissolve Town Meeting(s) ..and, yes..the “unruliness” – he does bear responsibility for that too..more than anyone, in fact)”

Pspan wote:

 Citizen’s need to KNOW that there’s NEVER ANY chance of “meeting Imanipulation”…or even the appearance of it. I’m not so confident…and that’s why I’ll vote for Claire Smith.”

Pspan, I’m not so confident that anyone can absolutely make certain that there’s “NEVER ANY” chance of  “meeting maniplation” or the appearance of it. However, I am certain that John Donahue has never moderated a meeting where only one side of a particular view was allowed. Can Claire Smith claim the same? I don’t think so which is why I will be voting for John Donahue, the current Town Moderator that has 9 years of experience moderating Town Meeting as well as being very well versed in parliamentary procedure..

Pspan wrote:

  Responding to you at all, Michael, is (I know) a fruitless effort..I’m sure we’ll never agree (on anything??)

Pspan, while we certainly do appear to be far apart on many of the current issues, that does not mean we will never agree on anything, or that we should stop trying.

That being said, here are a few more telling posts:

#5 2009-10-26 23:15:56

=========================
Pspan wrote:

“Fogcutter”..Mike Flaherty..or whatever you want to call yourself today
=========================

Why Hello "Dave Dipietro", or "Pspan", or "Pshooter", or "TakeBackWareham" or as you put it "whatever you want to call yourself today".

Sorry for the delayed response. I gave some thought to Larry's post and I decided to make some better use of my time than blogging.  However, this is my own Blog, and you do deserve an answer.

Without further ado, and apologies in advance for spelling errors...

=========================
Pspan wrote:

You are clearly a supporter of the current administration, “Mr. Halifax”, and “Move Wareham Forward”.
=========================

Clearly you haven't been paying attention.  It is called calling 'em like I see 'em and giving credit where credit is due. 

Example 1: At times I think Robert Slager is no less partisan than those he likes to label as "partisan".


Example 2: I think the BOS shirks their responsibility when it comes to the library.

And yes, like it or not many times the man from Halifax has a valid point, but on those occasions when I think he needs correcting I am perfectly comfortable doing that, as I would expect the same from him.  This is how civil discussions work.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
An example...

============================================
Robert Slager wrote:

Note how the post didn’t say “there are three potential candidates for two seats on the BOS.” No, the moderator said “we have” three candidates. That should eliminate any doubt that Take Back Wareham is nothing more than a political action committee in disguise.
============================================

Rob, I don't see the problem, but I understand your perspective is different.

TBW might be loosely (maybe solidly?) considered a political group for a number of reasons, but I don't think this is one of them. For those of us who live here and are registered voters in Wareham, "WE" literally do have three potential candidates for two seats on the BOS at the moment. If others, including the incumbents, file papers then "WE" will have more. It really is that simple, although I won't pretend to speak for whoever wrote what you were responding to. But in the future if you see me refer to "our" candidates for office in Wareham, please do not instantly think that I am somehow endorsing any of them.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pspan, I've seen folks banned on Bill whitehouse's site for far less critisism of the "party line" when it happens there.  Last I recall folks can be banned there at the request of 3 unnamed emailers.  Yet I am still welcome to post on The (real) Wareham Observer's website.  For that Robert slager has my respect.

I just don't have any patience for BS, regardless of who is serving it.

That's why I have no problem telling you that I do find that Robert Slager's site has its fair share of incivility too.   Your circle of friends are routinely referred to as "stupid", "dumb", "morons", and "idiots". 

===========================
A recent example where someone gets a trifecta:

By: CoachTP on 3/14/10

The "peaceout site" is spinning their wheels so hard I am afraid that they might hurt themselves. Chief Stanley has ushered in a new wind of change in the WPD. You can see it, hear and feel it. Idiots like tenso754, IHL, ILinaZoo and yes, Larry McDonald and Dan-zero are so stupid not to notice the change. Hey Larry why would anybody want a debate that is not a debate. A debate is a two-sided exchange of ideas. One side makes a point and they other gets to rebutt. Your idea of a debate is call people names like at your so call open community meeting, to distort and make fun of the opposition because their opinion is different than yours. Keep talking about how we ofer no solutions to the problems, better still give me one solution to the problems in Wareham other than we need change in leadership. I hope Obama gets health care coverage for you "peaceniks". Mental health care is sadly lacking in your case. Maybe a better idea is to look in the mirror and take a long look at what you see. Hope the mirror does not break. Mirror, Mirror on the wall, who is the dumbest of all.

http://www.thewarehamobserver.com/news.php?viewStory=737
===========================

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't CoachTP have a role within MWF?  Rhetoric like this doesn't help move anything forward.

And make no mistake, Pspan, Robert Slager "approves" each and every post so he is in effect sanctioning this rhetoric.  Not to mention his own contributions...

===========================
Robert Slager jeered:

"I think I speak for all rational people when I say Hamatron, you’re an idiot."

http://www.thewarehamobserver.com/news.php?viewStory=279
===========================

Now, I consider myself somewhat rational and..um..well..No.  Robert does not speak for me on this, as I don't know or care who or what a "Hamatron" is, and I have to think some others feel the same way.  As an aside, I wonder what our tourists think when they read some of this inside baseball nonsense.

While the tone on Robert Slager's site pales by orders of magnatude to that of Bill Whitehouse's site, two wrongs don't make a right.  They never do.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I first launched warehamforum.com when I said that it was "inspired by what I'll charitably describe as a "void" in Wareham's online community."

Because I can tell you without a doubt that I would not allow such rhetoric to originate on a website that I managed.  If it occured it would be gone.  I was very clear about this in the Terms of Service and I meant it.

Surprisingly, I do find that Wareham Week is starting to fill this "void". :-)  The only problem is for unpaid subscribers being able to access discussions older than a couple of weeks.  But I understand.

==========================
Pspan wrote:

...but you conveniently disregard the facts that don’t suit you.
==========================

Examples please.  If you don't respond to anything else, I would appreciate a response to this.

==========================
Pspan wrote:

If there are two sides of the political fence in Wareham..you’re obviously on “their side”.
==========================

Like Robert Slager, you too can choose to view things in terms of "sides".  I prefer to take issues one by one as they come and let the chips fall where they may.

 
As I put it elsewhere when someone felt that I "walk the fence".

==========================
By: fogcutter on 2/24/10

I love your style. When in doubt, just ask. Like you, that's all I'm doing. It is how I learn. It is how I become informed.

I have a real problem with the “us vs them” attitude that is so prevalent in town politics these days. I think some people (not you, I think) find it frustrating when they can’t figure out if people are “for them” or “against them”, and they need to learn that sometimes it isn’t all about “them”.

For me, it is about the issues – not the sides. I prefer to get informed and make what I hope are sound decisions. It really is that simple.

And I think if you look back you will find that I don't sit on the fence at all once I have enough information to make a decision.

A quick recap...

I am decidedly (and publicly) FOR the Westfield project for all of the reasons listed in a really good article by Andrea Smith that outlines the void in elderly housing it would fill.

I am decidedly (and publicly) AGAINST police civil service for all of the reasons that our fine interim police Chief Stanley has repeatedly laid out.

I was against the increase in local meals tax (I’m taxed enough already), until I read the literature at town meeting and realized how trivial this tax would really be. So I was going to vote FOR the meals tax, but as I recall that was voted “no action” (or further study or something similar) so I didn’t get a chance to actually vote for it. I mentioned this publicly here at the time.

I am decidedly FOR allowing Bay Point to pursue a conference center. I mentioned that publicly here before at the time.

I hope that clears that up.

With regard to your other questions, please hold those thoughts. And let’s just say that I expect this Sunday’s Chat to be a live one.

Respectfully,
Fogcutter
==========================

==========================
Pspan wrote:

Also, you initially refused to allow me to post using the screen name “PShooter”..which at the time was the screen name I used on multiple “blogs”, because you stated it was the name of a “real person” in town
==========================

Yup.  There seems to be a habit in Wareham of folks co-opting the usernames and domain names of others. I didn't want to be a party to that. "Paul Shooter" came before "PShooter".  Sorry if you still have a problem with that.

==========================
Pspan wrote:

You finally “allowed” me to use the name “TakeBackWareham”..Also, initially on your site, you had a section where information pertaining to three “groups” was created..even though I was the only one posting from any of the “non-groups”..you removed the Take Back Wareham “section” (almost immediately) because there were no publically available names, “official” websites, etc. (though I suggested you use my site..and my email for contact - essentially, you agreed..Take Back Wareham was NOT an organization).
==========================

Right.

I took down the Take Back Wareham Forum shortly after those indentified by some as being with MWF where emphatic that MWF wasn't a group but rather a "slogan".  Now I've learned differently from the discussion that Mike Schneider has posted.  But now, just like then, there is no "official" contact information for MWF, so it really wouldn't be right in my opinion to host a forum for it.  And to be clear, all of the posts in the TBW forum I hosted were not deleted, they were simply moved to the "General" town government discussion.

But let me back up a bit.  I created a forum for each of the groups that I found discussed in the local media.  As I recall, that was CBW, MWF and TBW.  All have since been removed because I didn't hear back from any "official" contacts. In the case of MWF I don't remember, but I may not have even contacted them and just removed it from lack of interest.  In other words, I knew MWF was aware of the MWF forum but chose not to use it.  Which is fine.  It was there just in case they needed or wanted a place.

But the original hope, Pspan, was to be a 3rd party to help bring them ALL TOGETHER Pspan, precisely because I am not affiliated with any of them.  Indeed, as I mentioned above, I absolutely do have my own views on matters that I form positions on after getting as much information as possible.  But I (or anyone) can do all that as an idividual and without being a part of anyone's group.

What always struck me from the beginning is all the rumor and innuendo discussed about these groups.  I was hoping to provide a one stop spot where the leadership from these groups could post information about their group's efforts and upcoming events in a civil and mature way.  That simply doesn't happen on Bill Whitehouse's site for reasons obvious to anyone who spends about 10 minutes there.

Anyway, as things turned out, folks from some of the "factions" were worried that somehow their IP adresses would be revealed or that they would somehow lose their anonymity so it never took off.  Life goes on.  No biggie.  Now I keep it around to post documents and such to reference from blogs like this one.  The irony is that it was an attempt to bring folks TOGETHER, Pspan.  There was even a plan down the road for it to be a co-moderated forum.

Imagine this for a moment, Pspan.  Imagine, for example, a forum where Michael Schneider, Larry McDonald, and myself moderate an online forum free of usernames like "IHATEBRENDA", "IHATELIZ", "IHATELAGER".  Oh sure, those folks would be welcome, but they would have to leave the "hate" part on Whitehouse's website where it thrives today without anyone - including you - batting an eye.  If you doubt my sincerity on this then run it by Acasualobserver, who impressed me so much that I solicited him (or her??) at the time for such a role as a co-moderator. 

Whose "side" does all this put me on, Pspan?  Pretty silly, huh?

There is a reason why I decided to call one of the sections on warehamforum.com "Somewhere In the Middle" where I post very different perpectives of local newpaper editors on the same topic - because so often that is where the truth lies - in the middle.  The key is to have access to as much information and viewpoints as possible in order to make informed decisions.

Think about that Pspan. A forum where Wareham residents who disagree profoundly with each other at times, but who come together in some form of common ground (does it exist), to truly discuss the issues freely without fear of being banned for simply disagreeing.

I know.  It would never happen, right?  Hey, I can dream can't I?  Sometime's I wonder what would happen if we all just sat down for a brewsky some time.

=========================
Pspan wrote:

Answer me this, was I ever “nasty” to anyone on your website, Mr. Flaherty/Foggy??.
=========================

Nope.  You have been very friendly (or at least very candid) and professional on warehamforum.com.  I have made note of that repeatedly on Robert Slager's site.  I speak pretty highly of you acutually.  I think I was even likened to a "Troll" by Robert partly for that (geeze I just can't win).  It is a shame that you can't be the same while on Whitehouse's site, but I don't fault you much for that.  That site can bring out the worst in anyone.  And I applaud the letters to the editor on Wareham Week and elsewhere where folks are speaking out about the divisive impact it is having on our community.

Anyway, I hope this clears things up.

Take care, and enjoy the rest of the weekend.

Mike F.

"==========================
Pspan wrote:

...but you conveniently disregard the facts that don’t suit you.
==========================

Examples please.  If you don't respond to anything else, I would appreciate a response to this."

"Foggy"..thanks for responding...and now I'm back to seeing (a little anyway)..the person I felt like I was dealing with way back when...Someone who "leaned" toward the thinking of those like Mr. Slager (and other's), but willing to weigh "other voices", as well. Maybe the biggest difference between us is the amount of "faith" you put into Mr. Slager's "reporting"..I put none (or very close to none), so if you put any....then you win that battle. Differing perspectives, perhaps. I guess the timing of your "coming out" (before the election/TM) and your "general support" of many of the ideas supported by the administration, and Mr. Slager (Westfield, Civil Service, etc.)..all seem to make me feel your on "their" side. Also, continuing to show apparent support after (what I believe) are MANY examples of why NOT to support them. Many topics have been discussed on the website you say you refuse to participate in (because you find it too "distasteful")..but people "go" there...at least some do..and you should know as well as anyone..gaining an "audience" is not necessarily an easy thing to do. I generally agree, that "it" shouldn't be viewed as two "sides"..I am often guilty of referring to, and viewing it as, "two sides", and try to remind myself NOT to do it..that being said, many people who support a particular issue..tend to be "unified"..and agree on other issues, as well. You raise some good points, and have added quite a bit of documentation over time on your forum and elsewhere..and furthered the "discussion" on a number of fronts..however, we always seem to look at the same issues, and end up on opposite sides. Strange, because I'ld like to believe that we're both capable of coming to (fairly) well thought out decision(s). Who knows..it's possible..maybe sometime we'll come to the same conclusion. Here's to hope!

I would be open to having a "brewski" (for sure) sometime..Can I invite Larry? (and Michael, your welcome if you want, as well)..let's set it up! Anyway, I don't think I'll get into a long rebuttal of your posts at this time. I appreciate both of you responding, I (still) don't think we see eye to eye on alot of thing's..but what's the worst that'll happen (I'll get stuck with the bill??) You probably still have my email address from your website (I'm not hard to find)..so if (either of) you want to contact me your welcome. Have a great Sunday..