Media Watch - September 2011

By Mike Flaherty | Sep 20, 2011

It's about getting it right.

With all of the misinformation we see (unintentional or not) on the many websites that discuss matters in town, I thought I would start a monthly "Media Watch" on my blog.

Errors, poor coverage, spin, slant, innuendo, conjecture, or flat out lies?  All I ask is that if folks wish to add something here, that they use facts and reference the source material to provide the full conext whenever possible so that we can all decide for ourselves.

Mike Flaherty

Comments (59)
Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Sep 20, 2011 08:19

I'll start. 

The following excerpt caught my attention from Robert Slager's Sunday chat.

By: robertslager on 9/18/11 (emphasis mine)

I do have a solution. If more people from this site would respond to the lies on Wareham Week I may not feel the need to do so here. Since I am banned from commenting on Wareham Week I cannot do so myself.


Putting aside Robert's claims of lies on WW, what I found so interesting about this was another excerpt from Robert's website.  In a February 2011 column entitled, "A response from Anne Eisenmenger of Wareham Week", Robert posted an email response that Ms. Eisenmenger sent to him.

We have discussed this here before on Wareham Week, but here it is again.

Again, quoting directly from (emphasis mine)


    You have not been banned from posting on Your previous user accounts were deactivated after you persisted in reposting content that had been deleted as inappropriate. If you want to create a new account using a new e-mail address, you are free to do so.  But please do so with the knowledge that a repetition of your previous behavior will result in a repetition of the account deactivation.




What's up with that?  Clearly Robert isn't banned from Wareham Week.  Or am I missing something here?

Robert, if you can't respond here for some reason, then my email is

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 20, 2011 11:58

Given the amount of unfiltered garbage that has been allowed to appear on Wareham Week, (ie., reference the disgustingly false accusation that Mr Schneider and his family moved and left his teenage son home alone,) I question the editor's recent refusal to print a comment from Kate Furler.


If the refusal to print was due to the fact that the editor considered it an editorial, I have removed the "To the Editor" opening.  This is Ms. Furler's opinion which deserves consideration as would any other poster's.  Nothing in Ms. Furler's post violates the use agreement of Wareham Week.


If Wareham Week refused to post Ms. Furler's comments because Wareham Week had already removed a poster's comments which included the new location of the Schneider children, that reason is not sufficient.  The damage had been done.  Wareham Week allowed the post, if only for a brief period.  In addressing bullying in general, Ms. Furler's post encompassed more than that single issue of the family's location.  Please read on for Ms. Furler's comments.


“If you pass on an insult, you ADD to the insult.” If it is true that your organization, the Wareham Week, has ALLOWED the publication of the whereabouts of the Schneider family, I am shocked and dismayed. If a person is willing to volunteer his time and effort to public service he is NOT volunteering his family for harassment. Obviously the Schneiders found the hostility here in Wareham harmful to their children.

They were willing to remove the kids to a “safe” distance. Now the bullies here have chased down this family, for no other reason than to intimidate Selectman Schneider into resigning. This is so unacceptable. Grown people can disagree all they want with each other, but only goons attack the families of their opponents.

The blogger who posted this information is despicable. Your organization for allowing that info on the blog site is beneath contempt. I call upon all decent people in Wareham to stand up to these bullies - and since it is your name on this, Wareham Week -I AM calling YOU and your organization bullies. Please remove that information immediately, and please apologize publicly to the Schneider family for the harm you are doing to them.

Kate Furler
Wareham resident

(Note: The letter to the editor was copied to the selectmen and members of the media.

Posted by: frightened | Sep 20, 2011 13:03

Garbage -- Garbage -- Garbage. I don't believe the Schneider family was ever abused any more than any other selectmen's family.


This is all misdirection. Attack the Wareham Week and the good people of Wareham to divert attention from a selectmen that is not doing the best thing for the town. Mr Schneider needs to resign. If he wants to keep his family in Maine I wish him the best.

Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Sep 20, 2011 13:15

Very shortly after I made my post, I received an email from Robert Slager with a litany of  posts from his website that he insisted that I post on Wareham Week.  He also noted that he copied numerous undisclosed recipients.  Why the secrecy on the recipients?  I don’t know. 


In the interest of transparency, I’ll continue to respond here.


In addition to insults that he allowed to be posted about me (he literally has to "approve" each post before it appears), I also noticed on Robert’s website that he posted a message asserting, “As expected, Mike Flaherty has declined to post my response even though he invited me to do so in his column”.  Then about an hour and a half after that I got an email asking why I didn’t post his response.


My goodness, like most people I do have a day job and I am not able to blog nearly as much as some.  I didn’t plan on getting back to this until tonight, but I’ll do it now.  And to clarify, what I wrote was a Blog post, not a "column" as Robert refers to it.  I have never written a "column" for Wareham Week.


That said, I see that Interested Party has answered Robert’s call to post Kate Furler’s Letter to the Editor.  I think Kate’s letter has merit and I do think it should appear in hardcopy, but I also understand the comments that she was responding to occurred in the online portion of the paper, and there is nothing preventing ANYONE (even Robert?) from creating a FREE account and posting their views.  Kate could have done that if she wished.


There, that was simple.


Anyway, sticking to the facts and to the topic I posted, Robert did eventually respond with



Robert Slager wrote:


RS: Mr. Flaherty, I cannot sign-in on Wareham Week. I have tried multiple times with several people watching me. Here's the answer to your question: Anne Eisenmenger is lying.



Well that does present a problem, doesn’t it?  Here we have Anne telling Robert that all he has to do is “create a new account using a new email address”.  On the other hand, we have Robert claiming he has tried multiple times with people watching him.  Would that include DarkNight, perhaps Robert?  :-)


Excuse me for asking the obvious, Robert, but did you do as Anne said and create a new account that uses a new email address?



You can reply to my email address or your own blog.  I will see it either way.  However, I may not be able to continue the discussion until much later tonight.

Posted by: Davidsgirl | Sep 20, 2011 13:30

Sorry Mike you seem like an earnest, nice guy but.. who cares? If I cared what Mr Slager said I would go to his site, I have no problem with him and in fact I do go to his site and read the comments but why bother cross site blogging? There are posters here (ok so mostly it's WT) who post a comment and then go to WO to read Mr Slagers response then they respond here, it's all a bunch of nonsense. If you don't respect him and believe that he is not telling the truth it is simple, stop reading his site. And for all of the people that are obsessed with him I suggest you do the same, if you all stopped reading and commenting he becomes invisible and isn't that what you want? I have never seen so much attention paid to someone that people claim they never want to hear from again, it is one of lifes great mysteries.

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 20, 2011 13:34

Interested Party,


Since the intent of Mike Flaherty's post is to dispel misinformation, can you cite the stories posted by WarehamWeek reporters that made the "disgustingly false accusation"?  I've re-read the stories posted by Ms. Rebhan and Ms. Murray and can't find it.  The reporter's post doesn't make any mention of a teenage son, just a son,


And Ms. Furler's letter also doesn't offer evidence that the WW reporters did anything wrong.  It seems to reference a discussion post that was taken down and which is no longer visible.  If the post, which anyone can make, was deemed inappropriate and taken down by WW when they viewed it, what more can they do?  I don't see that by allowing people to post a discussion thread they are carte blanche agreeing with everything posted.  Whatever was said in the original post was clearly deemed inappropriate, so they took the most significant action possible - they took it down.


And Frightened, I must take you to task as well.  Please respect the intent of Mike's post.  Your post does nothing to dispel anything, it offers only opinion.



Posted by: watersprite | Sep 20, 2011 13:41

I have no way of telling who is speaking truth, but I suggest that Robert Slager create a VillageSoup account called WarehamGuest or HalifaxGuest or something like that and try to log on.  Based on what Anne Eisenmenger is saying in her letter, I bet this works, if he is interested in trying.

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 20, 2011 13:47

Mike, I appreciate the fact that you did not delete Kate's letter.  I agree with her with regard to its content, ie., that the Schneiders felt their children were in danger.  Whether that be physical, emotional, or psychological damage, that is their determination to make.  Bullying should be addressed at every level, including that behavior among adults.  Because, after all, isn't that where children learn behaviors in the first place.


A person or organization which stands by and allows bullying needs to assume some of the responsibility for the damage that ensues from that behavior.  Bystanders do not get a free pass anymore.  Their silence demonstrates a tacit approval of the bully's behavior.  Wareham Week should assume some of the responsibility by not monitoring its posts and allowing the children's address to be posted.  I call that tacit approval.


Aside from the content of Kate's letter, there remains this issue: Wareham Week's selective censorship of a post that condemned WW's behavior -- likening it to the bullying behavior of certain posters.  I am interested in hearing Wareham Week's explanation for selectively deleting Ms. Furler's original post.


Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 20, 2011 13:56



A poster referred to a "17 year-old" being left alone.  I saw it and commented on it.  The Schneider's 21 year-old son decided to stay in the home.  That misinformation was out there for all to read.  How can you un-ring a bell?  Impossible.


Wareham Week allows these comments without filtering them.  These comments are bullying, damaging, and frankly, disgusting because that particular comment called the Schneider's parenting ability into question.  When in fact, their actions showed the utmost love for their family.  False accusations are unfair on all levels.  There is no excuse.

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 20, 2011 14:06

Interested Party,


From everything I've seen reported by paid reporters or on video, there is no proof or official trail concerning threats to, or the security of, the Schneider children.  I'm perfectly satisfied with his statement that he believed his family was threatened and took the action of moving them out of town.  That is such a drastic step that there had to be something major happening to warrant such a life-changing move.  There was certainly some kind of threat involved.


That being said, there is no evidence of such threats.  There is no way to prove or disprove them.  Someone saying they or their children were threatened is a reportable statement, but unless it can be corroborated it is just that, a statement.  It is not fact.  No reporter has said there are police reports or school reports (Superintendent Rabinowitz denies there are complaints in the school system) citing such threats or bullying.  That doesn't mean they didn't happen, there is just no evidence of it.  So what is a good journalist to do?  Ask questions and wait until there is something supported by evidence to report.



Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 20, 2011 14:21

Agreed Watersprite.  However, circumstantial evidence is just as admissible in a court of law as physical evidence is.  A family just doesn't "up and move" for no reason.  The Schneiders feared for their family's safety.  That fear doesn't just appear out of thin air.

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 20, 2011 14:21

Interested Party,


I will say the same thing to you that I said to Frightened.  Your opinion doesn't add anything to Mike's thread.  I applaud him for trying to dispel misinformation by referencing facts, as best we understand them.


I believe it was Shantih who made the incorrect assertion about the Schneider's son and made the negative judgement about the Schneider's parenting qualities.  I believe it was you who corrected her as to which son was living in the house.  Anybody concerned enough with the story and who followed the thread certainly got a balanced view.  While I hope I have correctly stated the facts, I've also expressed the opinion that people from both sides got their say and a reasonable person should be able to form an opinion.

Posted by: justin beiber | Sep 20, 2011 14:24

The moment I read Mike Flaherty's above posted "Media Watch," I knew the conversation would turn into a cat fight between MF and RS. 

Have fun boys, because a lot of us are changing channels.

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 20, 2011 14:41

The facts are:  Mike Schneider explained his reasons for missing two BoS meetings and his reasons for moving his family out of Wareham,  a fortiori, Mr. Schneider took the threats to his family seriously.

Posted by: Recycler | Sep 20, 2011 14:46

I feel a little unclear on this concept, Mike.  Is the topic to get clarification on media stories, or the comments by anonymous authors beneath the media stories?  I'm hoping it's the former, not the latter.  Some posts are just plain nasty.  And frankly, not worth the meds it would take to fix them ...

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 20, 2011 14:58

My question remains unanswered.  Why did Wareham Week censor the comment by Ms. Furler?

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 20, 2011 15:05

Interested Party,


What is the circumstantial evidence?  Saying you feel threatened and moving away doesn't even qualify as circumstantial evidence. People often give one reason for doing something when the actual compelling reasons are something else entirely.  The back and forth on these discussion posts is often like a rowdy self-policing courtroom.

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 20, 2011 15:21

A fact is generally something everybody can agree with - that's why you commonly hear the phrase "we can all agree on the following facts".  When people disagree with the facts, then you have a problem.


The facts are that Mr. Schneider spoke at a BOS meeting during which he made several unsubstantiated statements; voiced his opinion about his colleagues, Wareham Week and others; emptied his house of household contents; and missed two BOS meetings.  He offered no proof to back up his statements or his opinions (he was under no requirement to do so).  His statements and opinions are not facts until he provides reasonable proof.


Your use of the term "a fortiori" doesn't fit - he offered no greater compelling argument.  By saying he left town because his family was threatened is no more compelling than he left town to avoid debt collectors, or his children weren't thriving in the school system, or he was being squeezed by the CCC for a new contract...or any number of other arguments.

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 20, 2011 15:38

Interested Party,

Your statement "circumstantial evidence is just as admissible in a court of law as physical evidence is" may be true, but when faced with physical evidence most judges and juries would accept it as more compelling than circumstantial.  What is acceptable and what is compelling are two different things.

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 20, 2011 15:44

Interesting, but I still would like to know why Wareham Week refused to "print" Kate Furler's letter.

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 20, 2011 15:52

If Ms. Furler wanted to print her letter all she needed to do was sign up and post it.  Am I missing something?

Posted by: Recycler | Sep 20, 2011 16:11

IP, don't read all sorts of things into it.  Newspapers get all sorts of letters that they don't print, but that doesn't make it censorship.  Her letter is here on a thread, it's been seen and remarked upon.

Posted by: seriousthinker | Sep 20, 2011 16:24

Wow.  I cannot imagine how everyone has the extra time in the day to go back and forth over the same old thing for hours on end.  First of all, I have to assume that Mr. Flaherty is using this as an example of a bigger problem, the lack of transparency and "spin" that is being placed on a lot of the information that the general public sees.  That being said, this whole fascination with whether or not Mr. Slager is allowed to post is simply ridiculous.  Why do we care?  Yes, it would be nice for him to answer to the posts here rather than on his own forum, but he has proven he is not going to so let it go.  Seriously people, stick to the intent of this "blog".  If you see something out there that seems a little bit fishy and feel that we have a right to know the truth, by all means POST IT!!  It is about doing the right thing, staying informed with accurate information.  A perfect example is the home on Lynne Road.  There is a continuous reference in the media to it being simply a home for the "mentally ill" when in actuality it is a home for dual-diagnosis patients - both mentally ill AND drug addicted.  (I will have to provide the links, but this information was given directly from Fellowship Resources, the operator of the home.) Kind of important to note before you come up with an INFORMED opinion on the situation.  This should not turn into a debate about Lynne Road, it is jsut an example of how this can help us to see that, unfortunately, there is sometimes a disparity between the truth and what the media portrays as the truth.   

Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Sep 21, 2011 06:20

DavidsGirl wrote:

Sorry Mike you seem like an earnest, nice guy but.. who cares? If I cared what Mr Slager said I would go to his site, I have no problem with him and in fact I do go to his site and read the comments but why bother cross site blogging?

I appreciate what you are saying.  I'll say this...

1) As they say, if a lie keeps getting repeated, it becomes the truth.  I have a problem with that, and as I said in my blog post, "It's about getting it right".  Now I have stuck to the facts here, and they don't look good for Mr Slager who has called Ms. Eisenmenger a liar.  That's a serious accusation.  Not too civil on his part and he has done nothing to back it up other than to claim he can't post on Wareham Week when the rest of the free world can.  DavidsGirl, or Interested Party, or anyone else, do any of you EVER recall Ms. Eisenmenger disparaging Robert or his former paper.  I don't.  This speaks volumes to me.

2) If I could post for free on Robert's site, I would.  But I refuse to pay someone $20 to "approve" my posts.



WaterSprite wrote:

I have no way of telling who is speaking truth, but I suggest that Robert Slager create a VillageSoup account called WarehamGuest or HalifaxGuest or something like that and try to log on.  Based on what Anne Eisenmenger is saying in her letter, I bet this works, if he is interested in trying.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me, WaterSprite.


As I've said, I'm trying to stay on topic and stick to the facts.  Robert did respond again with a litany of disparaging remarks.  If anyone wishes to view his full comments, they are available at

I can't be any more transparent than that, if anyone wants to slog though the unrelated nonsense he demanded I post, then be his guest.


By: robertslager on 9/20/11

I don't know how many more times I have to write this before Mike Flaherty will accept it: I cannot log in to Wareham Week's web site under any circumstances. [SNIP]

That must be frustrating Robert, but unfortunately you didn't answer my question.  Or maybe it's just me.

Forgive me, I'll ask it again: "Excuse me for asking the obvious, Robert, but did you do as Anne said and create a new account that uses a new email address?"

If that question is still too vague, then perhaps it would be easier to simply answer with the name of the account you tried to use.  Come to think of it, did you at any time simply just pick up the phone and call Wareham Week to straighten it out?  They do have a full time staff here in Wareham and are usually very easy to get a hold of.

I just find it awfully difficult to believe that anyone, and I do mean ANYONE, can create a new account on Wareham Week (for free) and start commenting on topics right away.  Folks don't even have to give their credit card information, as they are required to on your site.  Yet somehow, yours appears to be the only computer on the planet having issues posting. 

Have you had DarkNight look at it yet?  Maybe he can help you.


SeriousThinker wrote (emphasis mine):

Yes, it would be nice for him to answer to the posts here rather than on his own forum, but he has proven he is not going to so let it go.

I'm getting a sense that's the case too, SeriousThinker.

But I will soon take your advice and move on to discussing misrepresentations from other media outlets.  Because unless Robert can demonstrate that he did as Anne said to do in order to post again (or even that he just called WW to straighten it out), then I think the point has been made and people like yourself are bright enough to figure it out themselves.

Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Sep 21, 2011 06:29

Finally, just to close the loop on the whole Kate Furler Letter To The Editor.

1) I already weighed in on it.  I think it should have been published in hardcopy.  See above.

2) Who knows, maybe Anne will publish it in an upcoming edition.  I do recall when I blogged here about my Police Detail bylaw, I sent a separate email at the same time to Wareham Week as a Letter to the Editor.  It wasn't until a two or three weeks later that it was published in print.  I know because all of a sudden I started getting many emails and phone calls, (surprisingly more than when I posted online) of folks saying they just read my letter in "the paper" and wanted to know what they could do to help.  Sure enough, I noticed it was then in the print edition.

3) I am surprised that Interested Party didn't include Anne Eisenmenger's response to Kate in her earlier post.  I will include it below.  I don't see any harm in Wareham Week publishing Kate's LTE along with Anne's response as-is or in summarized form and calling it a day.  Afterall, it is already in the public domain.




Eisenmenger's response via e-mail at 8:14 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 10, 2011:

Kate (and all),

Cyndi Murray forwarded your letter to me. As you may have already noticed, the material in question was removed from our site early this morning. Here is a brief explanation of what occurred:

Late last night, a commenter on WarehamVillageSoup posted a "discussion" topic containing a Maine address that was purported to be Mr. Schneider's. When Editor Jaime Rebhan saw the discussion this morning, she deleted it from the site and e-mailed the poster, explaining that it was deleted for very much the same reason you outline below.

For future reference: Comments on WarehamVillageSoup are posted as citizens write them, without any moderation, approval or editing from us -- a practice that is common on media websites. The staff regularly checks comments on the site -- on weekdays and weekends -- and deletes those that are deemed inappropriate. If you or anyone sees something that seems particularly offensive, we encourage you to speed the review process by calling one of us. Our cell phone numbers are all published in Wareham Week. My home number is xxx-xxx-xxxx (Note: removed by RS).

I am pleased that, in our more than 20 months in operation, VERY few of the hundreds of comments on our site have needed to be taken down. But, for those that clearly step over the line, we welcome the community's assistance in alerting us to them as soon as possible.


Anne Eisenmenger


Wareham Week &

Posted by: WarehamThinker | Sep 21, 2011 10:07

I find myself growing tired of the never ending stream of whining about Wareham Week from Bobo.


Let's face facts.  Anne Eisenmenger's newspaper start-up was an instant success.  Bobo, on the other hand, was unable to produce a successful Wareham newspaper after 5 years.


Anne's business is thriving.  Bobo is out of business.  While Anne and her employees are out bringing Wareham the news every day, Bobo is at home in Halifax, typing away his endless stream of complaints about a business competitor that ran laps around him and left him in the dust.


If that isn't sour grapes, I don't know what is.

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 21, 2011 10:43



Yes, I could have posted her response.  However, while Eisenmenger's letter to Ms. Furler explains the posting of the address of the Schneider children, it specifically did not address her refusal to post Ms. Furler's post which was critical of Wareham Week.  All posts should be treated equally, according to Wareham Week's policy.


That is the issue.  Why did Wareham Week refuse to allow Ms. Furler's post?


Perhaps Wareham Week will "print" her letter in hardcopy, but that does not absolve them of their refusal to allow her original post.  No where does Ms. Eisenmenger explain that action.  I see no harm in her acknowledging that fact, and moving on from there.


( Side note:  Wareham Thinker, enough is enough.  Why must you always resort to bringing Mr. Slager into the conversation?  We get it, you don't like him.  Methinks, this is your way to bring controversy into the discussion so that readers will stay tuned to Wareham Week.  I, like many others are beginning to see Wareham Week turning into a hatesite.  It's a real turn off.  Next time, I will just ignore your rants.)


My issue with Wareham Week is as follows:  If, as Ms. Eisenmenger explains, comments are "posted as citizens write them, without moderation," then why was Ms. Furler's letter not posted?

Posted by: thoughtful | Sep 21, 2011 11:11

Thank you, Mike, for making the effort to help everyone focus on facts and dispel the spread of misinformation. I don't comment much, but do read everything, and that clarity is definitely needed. Right now there are two topics/stories I would like to comment on.


First, in regards to Mr. Schneider, the facts are slim -- he left town with his family and his furniture unannounced, subsequently missed a month of Selectman's meetings, and returned with a statement about the hostility and harassement that his family was subjected to. I cannot and will not make any other judgements on this without further information (facts). However, the valid question keeps coming up as to why there are no reports or complaints to either the police or the school superintendent. I won't speculate on the answer(s) to this question either. What I do question at this point is why any Selectman, who has willingly taken a position of leadership, would not fight back against any purported hostility or bullying? It is my understanding that those in positions of leadership should be setting the standard and example for the rest of us, and were put in those positions because of the majority of voters belief in their ability to do just that -- to stand up and support what they believe to be best for the town of Wareham. In the case of Mr. Schneider, if we are to assume that the hostility and bullying of him and his family has been real (in other words, is a fact), then no evidence or facts have been presented to demonstrate his leadership or ability to fight for what is right - a community free of hostility and bullying. We, the voters need to see this clearly.


The second topic I wanted to bring up relates to that of Mr. Schneider in the sense of examining evidence and sorting out fact from fiction. It is the story of Marion's Fire Chief Stanley and his accident while responding to a fire at his own fire station. The most recent news is that the other driver has been cited for failure to pull over to the right and yield to an emergency vehicle. That seems pretty straightforward until you really look at the photos (the evidence). Her car was broadsided by Stanley -- he hit her at a 90 degree angle with the front of his car. This indicates that she was likely crossing or turning at an intersection, and therefore had to complete this before she could pull over to the right and yield. The one vital piece of information that is not provided is whether Stanley had his siren on. Very often at night and even in the day, I have seen police, fire, and ambulances travelling at high speeds with their lights on but no sirens. Without the siren, and depending on the curves in the road or limited views at the intersections, a driver does not know they are coming and has little time to react. It is probable that the reason there are not more of these accidents is the skill of the emergency vehicle driver, and their awareness that other drivers can't hear them coming. This particular accident could be a wake-up call to Wareham that we might use to discuss ways to prevent such accidents in the future. However, the larger point here is that the evidence (the photo) can provide additional information which can produce additional questions about what we have been told, creating a process by which the truth can be learned.

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 21, 2011 11:17

Interested Party,

Where was the "original" letter from Ms. Furler supposedly published?  It looks from Mike's posting that her letter was emailed to Ms. Eisenmenger.  Her comment back to Ms. Furler says the entire post was taken down, so everything included in that post (i.e. all comments) was also taken down.  Was her "letter" part of those comments?  If so, why would WW single out this one comment among all the others?

I'm still not getting your complaint.  It looks like everybody under this thread was treated equally - they all got deleted.

Posted by: Zephyr | Sep 21, 2011 12:03


It was Marion Fire Chief Thomas Joyce and NOT Chief Stanley.

Posted by: NDiPasquale | Sep 21, 2011 12:22

Thoughtful- The Marion Fire Chief is Tom Joyce, not Stanley (the Wareham Police Chief).


This whole thread is quite ironic.  Dispeling rumors.  Funny how it starts with Slager. 

 Mike - while Slager claims you have a "creepy obsession" with him, I guess I liken that to his overly creepy obssesion with the Pillsbury family.  How a person can make accusations while only citing anonymous sources can now expect the general public to believe that he can not log onto WW as gospel, is well, creepy.  Wait, I don't think you have a creepy obsession with him, you just "call him out" and it seems he doesn't like that.  His creepy obsession with WW just shows his frustration that his 'paper" didn't make it (100 years as he had hoped).   He could always make an email account (for free) using yahoo, make a new screen name and sign on! 


I fight with myself on whether to even comment when it comes to him.  He has NO STANDING here and only seems to want to "stay relevent" in Wareham by trying to turn anything into some sort of consipercy.  But then when he starts with his non sense I sometimes feel the need to "chime in" and correct him or even comment on his often ridiculous rants.  In the end, I guess it goes to what mood I'm in...


Might we turn the discussion into something other than Robert Slager?  I'm sure many readers would be inclined to participate if it was not about someone who hasn't helped Wareham other than to continously divide it. 

Posted by: NDiPasquale | Sep 21, 2011 13:05

See Mike, this is how he "ropes" me in and tries to stay relevent.  I got a call to tell me he lied on his website.  I was never deactivated from his website, my contract ran out and I didn't renew it.  Furthermore, how can I be the only one to be "deactivated" when he has claimed Liz McDonald was banned as well?  Oh and when did I EVER refer to myself in 3rd person?  Can't honestly remember that one!  Maybe Darknight can help? 

Mike, do we really need any more "proof" that Slager isn't about unitinig Wareham?  Do we need any more "proof" that just the topic of him raises peoples blood pressure or an uncontrollable urge to roll your eyes?  He clearly is frustrated that his paper was a failure and WW is thriving.  I apologize for helping to make him stay part of this topic.  Shall we move on?


Let me start:  Westfield.  There are so many rumors.  Is it true that once the baseball fields were made part of the deal, no one came forward?  I thought that was part of the "selling point"?


Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 21, 2011 14:13

Thoughtful, I had the same thought about the photos of Fire Chief Joyce's accident.  Broadsided the white SUV.  An accident reconstructionist would be able to determine the speed of Chief Joyce's vehicle and whether, even being an emergency vehicle, he adhered to the standards for emergency vehicle driving practices.  That said, he is presumed to have the right of way.


I disagree with you regarding Selectman Schneider.  He moved his family out of perceived harm's way so he could return and serve the Town in his highest and best capacity.  I call that courage and determination to make Wareham succeed.

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 21, 2011 14:35

NDIP -- okay, you brought him up again.  The reason Mr. Slager makes people's blood boil is because he, as an "outsider" has looked at a dysfunctional Wareham and found its flaws.  People do not like to be called out for their misdeeds and imperfections, especially by someone who is not in their clique.  On the other hand, no one really wants to do self-examination because it could shake the core of themselves or of their group.  They might have to make changes, and change is often difficult and scary.  So, instead the individual and/or the group scapegoats the "outsider" and says, "there is something wrong with him, not with us."


That's a "cop-out."  If you are afraid to truly look at yourself and at your soul, then you are afraid to grow and things will never change in Wareham.  I suggest introspection to all individuals and groups, not just to you, Nicole and Take Back Wareham, but to Move Wareham Forward, Wareham Week, Friends of the Library, and the other "groups" and organizations in Town.   Mr. Slager was only the catalyst.

Posted by: NDiPasquale | Sep 21, 2011 15:02

IP- your "cop out" theory is just that a theory.  One that shows how your though process works.  I am not sure how you have come to that conclusion, but quite frankly don't even want to know.   I suggest you take your own advice.  Slager lied.  I was not deactivated as he claims and furthermore, if what he said was true, how can I be the only person when Liz McDonald was banned long before I became a paying member?   Now, imagine lying about the small things and how THAT can become a catalyst to lie about bigger things?


BTW-personally, change happens in my life daily.  I am used to that.  I am in an ever changing environment that keeps me on my toes.  Part of my "job" is self assesment.  Constructive critisicm is not a bad thing, but can be difficult to take if the person receiving it is not open to hearing it.  I have an "attitude" of whatever situation you are in, you can always make it how you want it.  In other words, if I have some "God awful job" to do, I can make it "fun" or do the job with such disgust that I am going to be miserable the whole time.


Every town has "factions" that will never agree.  Your "co-blogger" Cheewowa - said recently to "pick a side". That theory is part of what holds Wareham back.  I have been guilty of it myself in the past, but realized (quite some time ago) that my friends and I will not always agree and I do not need to hold similar view points to remain friends. (Friends wouldn't work out if that is how it is supposed to be).


  Point in case:  Chief Stanely.  Many of my friends are not happy with not just his salary, but his performance.  I have no problem with his performance.  I have not seen anything that would deter my favorable judgement of him.  At first I was a supporter of Mark Andrews (much to the dismay of many people).  But alas, HIS actions have changed my mind.


Now, if you would like to discuss any of the other issues, I am more than happy to oblige.  As far as Slager goes, well, he is nothing more than a person who will make accusations without any evidence other than anonymous sources and side steps questions with nonsense (never really answering the question).  I really don't care if you (or any one else) reads his blog, but really, he doesn't have any standing in this town.  I really don't have any more to say about him (at this moment).  I would hope that we can move on from him as a topic and delve more into Wareham and what is going on in OUR town.  I believe I read that you are a member of this community.  Would you like to offer your thoughts on any other issue within this town?

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 21, 2011 15:38

DiPasquale, you urge us not to bring Mr. Slager into the conversation, yet you continue to do so. Please stop.


Living in "la la land" is one thing, but to live truthfully, you need to face reality. Your flippant comment about making a job "happy" does little to delve into the problems facing Wareham.  But, really, I'm glad you are able to make it through the day with your outwardly happy actions.

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 21, 2011 15:42

DiPasquale:  Fact:  oops, you said "fun" not "happy."  Sorry for misquoting you.  The remainder of my post still applies.  It's all a facade.

Posted by: NDiPasquale | Sep 21, 2011 16:21

Wow IP, so hostile and judgemental.  Not very "bringing us together" behavior is it?  Tell me, how did I deserve any of your negative energy?  Passive aggresive much?


First - I only responded to your comment regarding Slager (aka liar).  I told you I have no intentions (at that moment) of commenting on him.  So please, stop yourself.  I accept your apology on misquoting me.  I am used to it at this point.


Now, your "living in la la land" comment is quite telling of how you operate.  Your passive aggresive comments on how you are so glad I am able to make it through my day - well, the funny part is, I am generally a very happy person (inwardly and outwardly).  If you knew me, you would know that.  But alas, you do not.  Your freshman college course psych experience should explain to you all about passive aggresive behavior.


Facade?  Yes, your facade of actually caring at this point has been proven to be nothing more than you have an agenda.    Might I suggest you join the rest of us in reality.  This town is facing many problems.  You seem to be one of them with your inability to "get along" and want better.  You don't have to agree with me, but there was no reason to be such a bully with your post.  I choose not surround myself with people who have such a negative attitude.  I choose to surround myself with people who want to better "themself, their family, friends, community" lives.  You only seem to want to "argue" and be such a hateful person.  You should really do some introspection and realize while you are giving out all this "advice" you are completely ignoring it yourself!


Now, my comment about making a job FUN, is about attitude (guess you missed that).  The attitude of town employees and citizens as well.  While we are all struggling, we all still want to live in a town that is running with competance, integrity and honesty to name a few.  The topic of this thread was to dispel any media misrepresentations.  I asked about Westfield.  Any one have any thoughts on that?


Posted by: watersprite | Sep 21, 2011 16:26


I recommend you start a second thread on the same theme of dispelling misinformation, this time on the topic of Westfield.  It may be pre-mature, however, since we are in the middle of a procurement effort and we won't be getting any real information out of the Town during the process (a normal procedure).

For those interested, the following is the link to the Town website for downloading the RFP.  While the total document is 83 pages, the first 21 are the core.  This section provide enough information to compare the bid to the stipulations enunciated at Town Meeting.


Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 21, 2011 18:10

Nicole,  I am saying that the issues in Wareham are serious and should not be sugar-coated.   Making something fun superficially alleviates the drudgery, but that doesn't reach to the core issues.  I do agree with you though -- a positive attitude can be the first step.  Positivity can become infectious and if practiced long enough, a change can be had in the individual and in the individual's community.  That would be a blessing for Wareham.

Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Sep 22, 2011 08:57

I wrote:

DavidsGirl, or Interested Party, or anyone else, do any of you EVER recall Ms. Eisenmenger disparaging Robert or his former paper.  I don't.  This speaks volumes to me. 

I'm sorry if I missed responses on this.  Specifically to Interested Party, I didn't ask this rhetorically, and I would appreciate an answer.


Thanks in Advance

Posted by: cheewowa | Sep 22, 2011 10:15








Hi Mike!

I would like to contribute an important story to your Media Watch discussion:

From Boston Globe:

The family of Edward Harrigan -- a patient who died at Tobey Hospital in Wareham after no one responded to warnings on his cardiac monitor -- filed a federal lawsuit against the hospital and a nurse on Tuesday.

Harrigan, 87, was a patient at the hospital in September 2008. His electrocardiogram displayed a “flat line” for more than two hours because the battery in his heart monitor had died, but no one changed the battery, according to state Department of Public Health investigators.

During that time, his heart stopped. Because the monitor was not working, no alarm sounded to alert staff to his cardiac arrest. They later found him unresponsive and without a pulse.

The family’s attorney said yesterday that Harrigan’s death was caused by alarm fatigue -- when nurses become desensitized to monitor alarms, both audible and visual.

“It’s a very common problem, too many alarms going off,’’ said attorney Kenneth Levine of Brookline, who is representing Harrigan’s nephew, David Harrigan, administrator of his uncle’s estate. “In this case the alarm was ignored. The nurse was overwhelmed.’’

Joyce Brennan, a spokeswoman for Southcoast Health System, which includes Tobey, said the hospital would not comment. The nurse named in the lawsuit, Susan Spaulding, could not be reached for comment.

Since the death, which was first reported by the Globe in a series on alarm fatigue earlier this year, the hospital said it has taken aggressive steps to improve nurses’ responses. The Globe reported that at least 200 patients, and probably many more, have died nationwide since 2005 in cases involving alarm fatigue and other alarm-related problems.

The suit was filed in US District Court in Boston.

Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Sep 22, 2011 10:26

Thanks for contributing, Chewowa, but I was hoping that folks would point out what they felt needed to be "watched" with regard to media coverage.

Do you wish to comment on that?


Posted by: cheewowa | Sep 22, 2011 10:37

Yes, Mike, I would like to comment on the above story about Tobey Hospital and the Harrigan family.   As a resident of Wareham, I believe that this story about Wareham's community hospital MUST be read by it's residents.  Why would anyone want to skip something this important?  If you're sincere about your Media Watch column, you understand it's importance...regardless of advertising dollars.   I am, therefore, pointing out what I feel needs to be watched with regard to media coverage.  I believe that it is this newspaper's obligation to share this information with everyone.

Thanks for leaving the comment on.  That tells me there's hope.

Thank you!

Posted by: cheewowa | Sep 22, 2011 10:41

Mike, by the way.....yes, I do "get" what you mean by "watched" with regard to media coverage.  If this story doesn't make the list, then God help us all.   Tobey is OUR community hospital.  Southcoast - Tobey = same thing.  If Southcoast wants to run a hospital, they have to take the bad news with the good and share both with everyone.

Posted by: WarehamThinker | Sep 22, 2011 10:56

The story about Tobey Hospital just came out. Maybe give the local papers a chance to look into it before decrying them as lackeys of South Coast.

Posted by: watersprite | Sep 22, 2011 17:14

The Tobey patient death story is interesting not just because it happened at Tobey, but because The Boston Globe also published a story this week about a similar death in Worcester at UMass Memorial Hospital -- citing the same problem: "alarm fatique".  In the case of Tobey the death happened awhile ago (2008); the case in Worcester happened in 2010.  This isn't a case of "oh my God, this is an epidemic, what are we going to do about it?"  It's something that every hospital in the country is having to deal with.  Short staffed nursing trying to filter out what is a real alarm from what is a false alarm, and making sure they are 100% correct all the time.

Posted by: cheewowa | Sep 22, 2011 19:23

RE: Watersprite,

Unless, of course, it happened to your father or your husband.  Of course it is not a sign of an epidemic - BUT - a flat-line alarm is not a sound that needs to be filtered out from others.  That patient should not have died and then discovered to be deceased after 2-3 hrs. He was obviously (age/condition wise) a high-risk patient.  There is no such thing as a "false alarm" if you're a responsible member of the staff.  You check. And then you check again. And then you check again.

Yes, it has happened in other hospitals.  But that doesn't matter to a grieving family.  Gross negligence is gross negligence.


Posted by: watersprite | Sep 22, 2011 19:58


Posted by: Mike Flaherty | Sep 22, 2011 22:27

Cheewowa wrote:

Mike, by the way.....yes, I do "get" what you mean by "watched" with regard to media coverage.  If this story doesn't make the list, then God help us all.

Cheewowa, I have re-read your comments again, and I might have missed your point earlier.  If you are saying that the Tobey story neeeds to make the "list" of stories on Wareham Week (and other local newspapers), then I completely agree.

Also, thanks for thanking me for not deleting your post, but I don't think I have the ability to do that anyway.  For those unfamiliar with how a Blog on Wareham Week works, it isn't much different than making a new post under the "Discussion" section.  I think there are more posting options like the ability to add a caption photo and such.  I think the Villiage Soup software also makes Blog posts more prominent than a Discussion post by having its own section, but I could be wrong.


ANYONE can start up a Blog section on Wareham Week.  It comes as part of your paid subscription for $10/year (uless it has gone up recently).  A paid subscrition also gets you access to archived items.  Come to think of it, I am not aware of any more benefits other than that, as non-paid subsrcibers can comment on posts anywhere, and start their own new discussions.  They just have to do it in the "Discussions" section.

Oh.  I did think of another benefit.  I get to post a picture of my mug that people have to see when thet read my Blog  :-)

Anyway, I wouldn't have deleted you comment if I could, if that is any help.

Also, it seems Robert is in a tizzy because I am not "watching" the news items that he wants me to on Media Watch.  Sorry, but again I do have a life beyond a porch and I am good for about 3 posts a day most days.  If that. 

The point wasn't for me alone to be some kind of watchdog on the media, but to help harness the collective power of Wareham Week readers/bloggers for EVERYONE to do so if they wished.

Robert, or anyone else is free to do just that.  As you have just demonstrated.   And to re-cap, the problem with Robert Slager's ability to post here is only limited by..well..Rober Slager.

Cheewowa, If there is media coverage that is important to you to "watch", then absolutely go for it.   That goes for anyone.  I just want to make sure that this Blog thread isn't used for just for posting "news" (you can do that anywhere), but rather a critique of the media's coverage of it. 


As I said at the very beginning: "It's about getting it right".  Which if you can't tell, is sort of a peave of mine.  :-)

Mike Flaherty

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 24, 2011 15:27



I apologize for not responding to your question.  No one on Wareham Week's staff needs to respond to Mr. Slager in a negative way, because posters like you, Wareham Thinker, and others do it in lieu of the staff.


By not reviewing the posts and by allowing posters to thwart Wareham Week's posting requirements, Wareham Week has allowed a barrage of negative and disparaging comments to be made about Mr. Slager.  Wareham Week might as well step into the shoes of the "bullies" because the staff's (and, in particular, Ms. Eisenmenger's) refusal to prevent such attacks "speaks volumes to me."  Ms. Eisenmenger sets the example for her staff to follow.


I do not know Ms. Eisenmenger, so I will not ascribe to her the intentions of writing

Posted by: seriousthinker | Sep 25, 2011 20:07

IP - Out of curiousity, have you approached Mr. Slager about his comments regarding Mr. Flaherty?  It seems to me that there are supposed to be two sides to every story and that the fact that Slager cannot back up any of what he is saying is a little bit mysterious.  I am not familiar with him at all, nor do I follow any of his blogs, etc.  As a citizen of Wareham, I commend Mr. Flaherty for not being bullied by Slager, not the other way around.  How would you like it if you knew I had something to say about you that you knew in your heart of hearts was not true? Would you sit back quietly or would you speak up.  You tend to be pretty vocal on here about alot of issues, so I am guessing the latter.  Think about it.  Sometimes even those think we know best can pull the wool over our eyes. 

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 25, 2011 20:53

Here's the thing, Serious.  You do not know me, nor does Frogsrule, WarehamThinker, Frightened, and Old Lady among many others.  But that has not stopped some people from trying to bully me on this website, calling me angry etc.


Mr. Slager has never bullied me.  I have never seen that behavior in him.  Am I missing something?  I judge people by my interactions with them.  My interactions and conversations have always been straightforward with Mr. Slager.  I can't speak for Mr. Flaherty.  I don't know him either.

Posted by: seriousthinker | Sep 25, 2011 20:54

What a laugh!!!  Here I am, new to the whole blogging thing, rarely actually putting my thoughts out there and trying to be impartial.  I figured...hey what the heck do I know and decided to check out Slager's site so I could make up my own mind.  Imagine my surprise when I scroll through today's posts and see my own screen name pop up.  I do believe that this man I have had absolutely no interaction with is insulting my intelligence.  Like I said, new to this stuff I just picked a name based on a joke in our family and immediately Mr. Slager has decided to pull me into his web of attacks.  So tell me, what would you think if you were me?  I have absolutely no idea who/what/when or where Wareham thinker is, so you should be embarassed for immediately assuming that we are somehow in cahoots.   I tried to be impartial, but it didn't last long.

By: robertslager on 9/25/11
Someone told me that each user at Wareham Week can have up to five screen names. It seems to me that some folks are using quite a few of them. Wareham Thinker and Serious Thinker? Really? Someone couldn't come up with something better than that?

Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 25, 2011 21:09

Seriously, SeriousThinker?  Hard to believe that you haven't blogged before.

Posted by: seriousthinker | Sep 25, 2011 21:15

IP - I get what you are saying, and I find it sad that it resorts to name calling, belittling, etc.  I think that if we truly want to see change, we have to work together. Sound corny, I know, but it is true.  We may not all see eye to eye but certainly insulting and ridicule will get us nowhere.  I am pretty sure I have not done that to you (or anyone else) but don't get me wrong, my frustration is often over the top and my blood is often at the boil point with some of the things I read on here.  You noted that you do not know Mr. Flaherty...maybe a good start to forming your opinions about him would be to actually know him.  You might be surprised at how grounded and independent he truly is or you may not, but at least then you know.  I give him kuddos for using his real name, as pretty much noone else has the guts to. You also noted that you have not experienced "bullying" behavior at the hands of Mr. Slager.  Curiously, have you ever "tciked" him off? He seems to get pretty edgy when he gets annoyed (just my opinion).  Oh well, hopefully the craziness will soon dissipate, but I do think Mr. Flaherty has sincere concern for this town and is trying to do the right thing (Slager issues aside).  Frankly, if we had more doers and not so many be ers  we would probably be much better off.

Posted by: seriousthinker | Sep 25, 2011 21:22

Why is that IP?

Posted by: WarehamThinker | Sep 25, 2011 21:48

Hello, I'm not Serious Thinker.  I am the one and only Wareham Thinker.  I have but the one screen name, but I do think it is funny that a bitter old man who was caught pretending to be Batman is challenging anyone when it comes to number of screen names.


I wish Serious Thinker had picked a more original name, not that I care, but the tin hats aren't very intelligent and they see two people with the word "thinker" in the name and they automatically assume some vile power elite conspiracies are afoot.


Posted by: interestedparty | Sep 25, 2011 22:07

I have not condemned Mr. Flaherty.  I think he has taken the initiative to start a blog that allows those of us, not so versed in setting up a discussion, to post comments.  Thank you, Mr. Flaherty.  I thought the comments were going tangential.


My question still remains:  Why didn't Wareham Week write a story on Tobey Hospital?  Certainly anything happening at Tobey would be of interest to Wareham Residents.  It is after all, our hospital.

If you wish to comment, please login.