Atkinson Town Hall

Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson

There is a NEW POLL at Right--------------------->

Don't forget to VOTE!
Make your voice heard!

Welcome Message and Mission Statement

Welcome to the NEW Atkinson Reporter! Under new management, with new resolve.

The purpose of this Blog is to pick up where the Atkinson Reporter has left off. "The King is dead, Long live the King!" This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events. You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominem personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. The conversation begun on the Atkinson Reporter MUST be continued!

This Blog will not fall to outside hacks from anyone, especially insecure public officials afraid of their constituents criticism.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Why doesn't Atkinson apply for these grants?

Fromm the eagle tribune;

Grants to fund new radios for Newton, Danville police
By Ali LaFay

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program recently distributed $641,198 in funding to 14 Rockingham County towns.

The Danville Police Department will use its $10,714 to equip the town's four police cruisers with new radio repeaters, police Chief Wade Parsons said. "In the past, it has been a real safety issue for officers because they can't always make contact with dispatchers," Parsons said. "This will eliminate that problem and improve communication."

The Newton Police Department also plans to replace its portable radios with the $11,000 it received from the program.

Police Chief Lawrence Streeter said the department's current radios will no longer be serviceable after 2010, so it's important they are replaced as soon as possible.

The Kingston Police Department has applied for funding from the grant program.

"It's our intention to buy all of the officers new bulletproof vests," police Chief Donald Briggs said.

Kingston also has applied for a $190,000 COPS Universal Hiring Program grant to hire an additional full-time officer, who would be assigned to the Sanborn Regional School District.

If approved, the grant would be used to fund the training, salary and benefits package of the additional officer.


Anonymous said...

Some of these grant items are just fluff. For instance, would you think that an Atkinson officer needs a bullet proof vest? Or how about Danville or other country bumpkin towns?

Now the radios or repeaters in the vehicle, that is a different story. Sure grant money would be nice for those items.

I think if the grant monies were used for actual needed items, something that would really benefit an officer or the town, I am all for it. But to get grant money for "fluff" items, that is just crazy spending.

Anonymous said...

Any time anyone even hints at spending money on police radios here, grants, or otherwise, people on this blog go ballistic. Who wants that kind of grief.

tim dziechowski said...

Atkinson is not on the list of NH communities which are eligible for these JAG grants. Plaistow, Hamstead, Salem, and Sandown are not on the list either. I don't know why.

Anonymous said...

It's because past selectmen did not have the Town Administrator do the Grant searches that was part of his job description. Just another example of how Selectmen refuse to make the position pay for itself.

We don't need another TA. We need capable Selectmen.

Anonymous said...

"We don't need another TA. We need capable Selectmen."

They get paid $3000/year ($3500 for the chairman) for what I would consider a thankless job. And for the pitiful amount of money, they put in extraordinary hours.

So, where have you been? Have you volunteered for any town committee's. Have you tried to help? You're so smart, run for Selectman and solve all their problems.

Quit you whining and be happy that there are people willing to take the job to serve the likes of you.

Anonymous said...

A five member BOS is and will always be better than the three member board. [That being said because of creditability and accountability that seems to be troublesome and ongoing . ] Two more members makes it a better representation of the taxpayers. A Town Manager would be better than an T.A. Unless the selectmen are all ,for the most part, retired people it would be best to have a T.M. to do the boards bidding in that regard. A working selectman or woman has no real hands on of the towns running except for what they hear,see, and are a part of. Rather than pay each selectman some 3,000 plus or minus dollars put the money where it is best used . That would be in the best interest of the town considering the costs of insurance and lawyers fees due to past and upcoming litigation.

Anonymous said...

Atkinson got money a few years ago for bullet proof vests from a grant.

Anonymous said...

Those bullet proof vests come in handy in this town. When was the last time you heard of a serious fire arm problem in Atkinson that required one?

The last incident we had with a fire arm was that the officer lost it in the snow and was found a few days later!

To me these grants are a waste of tax payers money however if you fail to participate in requesting a grant, you maybe saving the taxpayers money but some other town will get the money anyway and spend it on something worthless.

So it is not just the towns, rather it is big government that allows this problem to persist.

Anonymous said...

yes we pay for every officer to get new bulletproof vests every 3 years I think. They have a life span.

Anonymous said...

"When was the last time you heard of a serious fire arm problem in Atkinson that required one?"

All it takes is one traffic stop gone wrong or a domestic dispute out of control, and it can happen to any officer, whether in a big city, or a sleepy little hamlet. Officers in small towns do get shot, and sometimes die or are very seriously injured.

Just because it has not happened here is absolutely no guarantee or assurance it could not happen an hour from now, a day from now, whenever.

You want that on your conscience?

Anonymous said...

No body complains about spending money on radios, they complain about an $800,000 tower in the center of town.

Anonymous said...

In these other towns the police chiefs are the ones who put in for these grants, because they are all notified of hommeland security grants, and other law enforcement grants. Atkinson's chief is too busy buying votes with the elderly to put in for them.

Anonymous said...

June 4, 2009 1:19 PM

I knew it, it's the Chief's fault. You thank him though for the nice weather today.

Anonymous said...

So if the solution to the dead spot problem is new radios, you got no problem with that?

Anonymous said...

The likes of me is representative of the taxpayers that expect our elected officials to do their job, honestly, fairly and to the duty they are sworn. This doesn't happen in Atkinson, no matter how much they are paid.

The amount of money they earn doesn't change their responsibility. Thank God they aren't paid more, because the result would be the same.

WE haven't been able to keep Town Administrators because of the antics our elected officials have been pulling for years. Every time we replace him, the cost go up and still no measurable results except FAILURE.

Will they get the cost of a new TA over $100,000 this time. Bet they will.

Anonymous said...

Why do I get the feeling that no matter who holds office you'd find some fault in any of them.

You don't like the way things are, I'm guessing Fred Childs will not be running for re-election. You seem to know everything. You're just what we need.

Anonymous said...

actually the solution probably has to do with vehicle repeaters, but they wouldn't discuss that for the last three years.

Anonymous said...

Chief is too busy reading the obituaries, sending out sympathy cards, and making sure 2000 senior transports get made. Come on get your priorities straight! Gotta keep the political machine humming.

Anonymous said...

Wow Mr. Critic, you can bitch about news coverage with the best of them! You must have 50% of the posts here!

Do you have a hobby?

Anonymous said...

"Wow Mr. Critic, you can bitch about news coverage with the best of them! You must have 50% of the posts here!"

Actually, I've sitting this one out. I would have thought now by even a thick head like yours would have figured out there is more than one critic here. Perhaps we should go by numbers, you know, Mr. Critic 1, Mr. Critic 2, etc. Help you keep it all straight.

"Do you have a hobby?"

Actually, I do. Aggravating you. Good day today.

Anonymous said...

No Mr. Critic, I don't believe there are 3, or even 2 of you.

There is one of you, posting incessantly, even though no one is listening to you for the simple reason that...

...we know you agree with everything the chief has done.

For that reason, your posts will be ignored more and more over time, your wasted electrons merely taking up screenspace, as people scroll right past your silly empty bitching...

Anonymous said...

Trust me, there is more than one critic.

And we know YOU agree with everything this blog has written negatively about town officials and employees (even though they have just posted an apology for running with a FALSE story.)

In their haste to sling the mud, it looks like they were the ones who wound up with it on their face.

So what else is NOT TRUE here?

Just wait until you see the anti-AR2 blog sign campaign we are working on. And seeing as the town tolerated your previous, well timed campaign around time meeting, I'm sure they'll tolerate what WE are working on. Freedom of speech, right?

AR2 = comic pages!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

To June 4 2009 7:39 am:

Are you serious? You think that officers working in small towns do not need body armor?

Why don't you call Cpl Bruce McKay's family in Franconia and find out if a vest would have saved his life when he was shot in the back with a .45

Or, how about Jeremy Charon's family in Epsom. He was killed while checking out a vehicle parked on the side of road.

Or, how about NH State Police Sgt. Jim Noyes who was shot and killed in Gilford

Or, Troopers Lord and Phillips who were killed by Carl Drega in Colebrook...not to mention the other Trooper, and US Border Patrol Agent, and NH Fish & Game Officer who were shot and wounded during the manhunt.

You are ignorant if you think nothing can - or does - happen in small "country bumpkin towns".

You should be ashamed of yourself for not even wanting to spend the money to protect an officer.

And another thing...vests also protect from blunt force trauma. So if an officer is hit with something like a bat, kick, punch, etc. it protects them, as well. Not to mention that officers have been saved by their vests after being in car crashes.

Anonymous said...

To settle the "vest" question, can anyone confirm that each officer on duty is wearing one 100% of the time?

Just like any tool, having one is great but if it stays idle sitting on a shelf then the earlier poster referencing that they are a waste of money is correct.

This is just an open opinion to be added for discussion.

Anonymous said...

"For that reason, your posts will be ignored more and more over time"

If you really thought that you wouldn't be doing preemptive posts against "Mr.Critic" when a new story appears.

You know the critics of this joke of a blog are gaining in numbers and you're threaten by it.

You, sir, are the one being ignored. Look at the many posts (none) supporting your position.

Sorry. The apology says it all. Without any credible source to confirm the story, the moderator chose to post a story that he could very well be sued for (shoe on the other foot this time.)

For a blog of this nature it has to have credibility. That was lost long ago. That weak assed apology is not going to do it.

So, Mr. 3 Questions, remain in that peaceful state of denial,or wishful thinking. The truth will set you free.

Anonymous said...

The post from June 4, 2009 7:39am illustrates the "anti-police" sentiment that is rampant throughout this blog. Here is this guy who is complaining about a FEDERAL grant that will pay for
%100 of the vest. This guys hand won't even go into his pocket for this very important safety item. He probably throws pennies around like they're manhole covers, too.

Another reason it is "anti-police" on this blog is that the fire department is constantly left out of "why do they need this argument". People complained about too many police vehicles...but no one said anything was wrong with 7 0r 8 multi-hundred thousand dollar fire "apparati"...or the PD budget is too high...yet year after year the FD bilks the people out of 60k in capital reserve...we don't need "bullet proof vests" in "country bumpkin towns" becasue they are "fluff" and "nothing happens"...but we needed a ladder truck for all the raging infernos that AFD battles on a regualr basis? The PD Chief is that as it may, what are the FD Chief's qualifications? He is not full time. As a matter of fact he was ELECTED by the firefigthers themselves!!! Anyone on that department can be the chief if they have the votes! But no one sees a problem with that. Why? Because the FD are America's Heroes and the cops suck. That's the said mentality in this and many other towns. Funny, I didn't see Chief Mikey and his boys charging into Tower 2 on that fateful Tuesday in September eight years ago.

The people on this blog...the moderator and the "team members" are phonies! Today is the one year anniversary of Corporal John Lapham's passing and no one word was mentioned of it. Instead its right back to attacking the cops and using every angle to turn it into a thread about the Chief and how bad the PD is.

We have a great bunch of officers working in this Town doing the best they can in a hostile environmment set forth by the very people they have sworn to protect and serve.

The officers, especially the full time officers, go out every day on every shift and do so professionally and with honor.

Remember John Lapham and his family that he left behind. And for once - at least for today - let's not have every blog entry turn into an "anti-police" rant.

Many good people in this town miss you, John. May you rest in peace.

Anonymous said...

I do not think anyone is degrading the efforts put forth by the Atkinson police force. Any officer that his willing to put his life before others is a hero.

Corporal John Lapham was one such individual and in addition to remembering his passing, we should constantly be reminded of his life as a public servant, dedicated father and one who would go the extra effort so that the citizens of Atkinson can live safely. I believe there are others that thank him daily for his kind effort in this town.

As for the comments left here on this blog, granted some of those entries are attacks from individuals that are ill informed; for others they may have been to question the practices within the department. Either way, those that know better should clarify any misinformation and lead those that may not know the whole truth rather than assume that the blog despises the Atkinson PD.

Anonymous said...

I fully acknowledge there are other violators in our other town depts that need to be addressed. But their violations don't compare to our chief.

When are people gonna get the point? the anti police bias is directed toward its leadership that has been found guilty of harrassing and intimidatings his own officers and found in contempt of court, yet he's allowed to keep his job. Any other person on this planet would have been fired for similar behavior. That is the first gripe - the fairness doctrine is not being applied by a mile.

Second is the never ending political machinations that go on using taxpayer dollars. The alleged separation of PD and Elderly Affairs forced an admission that the budget was really over $40,000 for EA but again, no penalty to the abuser of tax dollars for misappropriating police budget to support Elderly Affairs in years past. Never an explanation how 1600+ rides or 1900+ rides were paid for in a single budget cycle. The new EA budget of $40,000 still isn't enough to pay for 2000 rides when you consider all the costs. Again, violations go unpenalized. You or I would be jailed for similar behavior.

The recent Tribune article clarified it all where our chief spends his time. He is too busy reading the obituaries, sending out sympathy cards, and making sure 2000 senior transports get made to focus on real police work.

I haven't even talked about the costs to taxpayers for all the lawsuits not to mention the abuse of the badge that's generated so many documented complaints - again with no justice.

Stop using my bleepin tax money to run a political organization, abuse the badge and pay for their legal defense once sued.

The above atrocities are allowed by the Selectmen and until the BOS does something to change the PD political machine, the gripes will not stop. EVER. Get it?

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:05,

We all hear you loud and clear! Sheesh! You must be the life of the party.

Anonymous said...

But you still can't hold back the juvenile comments. Its like you can't ever accept allowing a single message to be posted without some retort.

We have a new name for you. It's Last Word Person or LWP. Last Word Person must always get in the last word no matter what. It's a mild case of obsessive compulsive disorder and while incurable treatment is available. Good luck LWP.

Anonymous said...

Heard around town: Three questions has created a name for "Mr Critic". Last Word Person (LWP). Yes, this gripping event is the talk of the town. TQ is once again strutting like a peacock for putting "Mr Critic" in his place. TQ will sleep well tonight for sure!

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:34,

TQ! I like it!

I was just about to bestow the acronym LOP (Life of Party) on old TQ right here on ARSE (Atkinson Reporter Slanders Everyone!)

Anonymous said...

"a·troc·i·ty (-trs-t)
n. pl. a·troc·i·ties
1. Appalling or atrocious condition, quality, or behavior; monstrousness.
2. An appalling or atrocious act, situation, or object, especially an act of unusual or illegal cruelty inflicted by an armed force on civilians or prisoners."

This is perfect example of how low this "forum" has sunk. First the story on the Lt., of which the whole topic should have been deleted. Then, the half-assed apology. Now, as a demonstration of blind hatred, the chief is accused of atrocities.

I'm not here to defend either the Lt. or the chief. I'm posting because this has gone on long enough.

Between Mr. Three Questions juvenile and childishly written accusations, the "you decide," comment when the moderator gives a list of anonymous statements as "proof", and now accusing the chief of deeds with a word normally associated with war crimes, I declare Atkinson Report 2 of acting against the best interests Atkinson and its residents.

It is time for the moderator(s) to step down and for the blog to be deleted until some more responsible and ethical person decides to pick it up.

Anonymous said...

Anon 11:05,

What a gross mischaracterization you paint! Can you elaborate on your comments about the "alleged" separation of EA and the PD? How is this alleged? Do you even understand the meaning of this word? Seriously???

The article focuses on how EA is working and doing things by the book. There have been no recent complaints (except for the cranks here on this board) and they are meeting with Terry Knowles next month to review their progress. Somehow this is not good enough for you?

And your comment about how the Chief spends his time is mean-spirited, ignorant, and boorish. It is truly pathetic that some of you would try to frame THIS as a vote buying scheme! I suppose when you're a cynical jerk, you can't help but think this way, but really, you should hang your heads in shame.

Having lost a loved one recently and being the recipient of one of these cards, I can tell you it was touching to know someone took the time to acknowledge my loss. In my opinion, it represented what living in a small town is

Anonymous said...

Well you should thank ME for the card because I PAID for it. Not Phil. But he put his name on it and I paid for the stamp. This is the beauty and smoothness of his scheme cause the recipients of his good will don't care how stuff gets paid for.

Amplify this over 1900 senior transports last year and 1644 the year before and endless other taxpayer paid favors and maybe you can figure out what the rest of us have figured out.

Thank you. You just pointed out exactly what I'm talking about. You think he's some great guy cause the card had his name on it. Its sad to see how easily you're manipulated. And yes, this is absolutely one of the best vote buying schemes I've ever seen.

Keep supporting Phil so he can keep abusing his critics and keep his job. In the meantime he's cost you a fortune in tax dollars with a bloated police budget and dept run by an unqualified person. Thanks for making my point. Sucker.

Anonymous said...

And lookey here, the moderator has disabled comments to the LT. apology.

I really loved this part, "While we still have not found any officer willing to go on the record with the story, It appears there is a letter written by Chief Briggs of the Kingston police force that basically denies the original story."

He heard something, a bunch of someone elses claim they heard it too, so it must be true. When it can't be proved, and the Kingston Chief denies it, THEN we get an apology for something that should not have happened in the first place.

Mr. Moderator, despite Mr. TQ's feeble attempts to dismiss the critisms, what you are witnessing here is BACKLASH.

It does not matter if the complaints against the chief are true. This blog has not done a single thing to improve Atkinson. All it has become is your bitch forum and a vehicle to promote you lawsuit (and don't bother denying it. It's no secret who runs this thing and has an axe to grind). You sir, have gone to far. And you wonder why you don't get any respect at the Deliberative Sessions.

Respect starts with integrity, and it sure ain't here.

Anonymous said...

What do you expect? The moderator is a jackass too.

Anonymous said...

I should have included that too. Thanks.

Anonymous said...

This blog is doing a great service to the town of Atkinson and us voters who would otherwise not even know of what needs correction in town. Keep up the good work. The more I read the more I see exactly where correction needs to happen. Thank you so much.

Anonymous said...

Anon 5:01,

You are a sad person.

Anonymous said...

"us voters"

Now that is a good one. It is the blog voters who accounted for the blogs favorite candidate, Valerie Tobin, overwhelming loss last March, 358 votes to Bennett's 1,031. A 3 to 1 loss.

Yep, this is the place to come for the latest gossip, true or not.

Want to try again and tell us why this place is such a good thing?

Anonymous said...

"Thanks for making my point. Sucker."

And again, we witness a well presented, well thought out, and highly compassionate response to one who recently lost a loved one.

Bravo sir. We bow to your superior intellect In the, oh a so eloquent, way you have your point made, you have also managed to reinforce the point the growing number of disappointed readers have been trying to make.

Atkinson Reporter 2 fosters hate, not information or progress. Thank you for your service.

Anonymous said...

Look at the organized plan to discredit the blog! So much energy going into it. So much intention going into it with each word and sentence.

Do you have any doubt as to why so much time and energy goes into this effort?

Ask yourself what is it about the blog that creates such fear?

Is it that a rumor that may not be true and needs correction? Hardly. That is not what keeps them awake at night. Oh no. Here is the dirty little secret...

What keeps them awake at night is the fear of loss of control. Control of what? Why, control of the voters and what they are allowed to know! What voters are allowed to also say and consequently what voters are allowed to think.

How can you "vote your conscience" if you are prevented from hearing ALL sides of a controversy? Make no mistake about it. The attempt to discredit the blog is aimed directly at your right to know.

Anonymous said...

There is no plan to discredit the blog. It is doing a fine enough job of that without anyone's help.

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is true. All of us who want to discredit the blog meet in a dark, dank basement and hatch devious plans on how best to accomplish our task.

You idiot. You completely miss the point. There is no organized group, no organized plan. We don't need one. Those who support the blog are doing a just dandy job of discrediting the blog all by themselves.

Let's see what they have accomplished so far.

- Every post, no matter what the topic, ends up with a discussion of the chief.

- The LT. story speaks volumes. Whether the story was true or not, it was posted based entirely on hearsay and absolutely no supporting facts. We were asked to take it on faith.

- Then, and I love this part, the apology. Lt., I apologize because I could produce no evidence it was true, and the Kingston chief issued a letter saying the story was false. Simply stating the latter would have done wonders for the moderators credibility. The LT. story did far more damage than the moderator seems willing to accept.

- Loss of control. You're kidding right? The only ones losing control are the people who run this joke. And believe me, I sleep just fine.

- Then we have the mental giants like Mr. TQ or the one slamming sympathy cards. Keep it up guys. You're doing a wonderful job.

- Oh, the "hearing all sides" part is a good one. As long as the side is anti-chief, the moderator is fully supportive. If one tries to present a counter argument, he's bombard with the same rhetoric we've been hearing for years. That my friend, is not a discussion.

- Right to Know. That is a good one too. The Moderator is the only one who can make direct entries and put his own spin on it. That is a failure of using a blog like forum. It is not a discussion group forum like so many others. It is controlled by one, maybe two people, whose position regarding town matters has been made plainly clear.

No, there is no active conspiracy to discredit this blog. The blog owners and supporters are doing it to themselves. We're here only to point it out.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Atkinson Reporter 2 is imploding all on its own.

Anonymous said...

I've noticed Mark Acciard is no longer listed as a team member of this blog. Hmmm...I wonder if there was concern about the Lt. Baldwin SLANDER story affecting his lawsuit against the Chief. I mean, it was an awful thing to say about him and it certainly could be perceived as trying to SABOTAGE his professional life! Gee, I would hate to be associated with something nasty like that if it is not true! And given the nature of his lawsuit, it would be -- dare I say it --- HYPOCRITICAL!!!

So why is Mark off the team as soon as it was pointed out he was on it? Not to worry though. I did a screen capture of the profile and saved it. And now comments are disabled on their admission of slander...I mean apology.

Can you hear the flushing sound? That's this blog, its moderator(s), and it's credibility going down, down, down...

Anonymous said...

One other thing I forgot to mention, and this has been discussed before.

There is evidence the moderator is keeping track of who posts what. Names cannot be readily associated with the tracking, but he can tell what IP address is associated with what post, therefore knows who keeps say what. In some circles this is referred to as BIG BROTHER.

To protect your true anonymity, come here through an anonymous proxy such as This way all posters will show the same IP address. There are others. Google anonymous proxy. I've found ninja to be the most responsive and least restrictive.

BTW - love flushing analogy

Anonymous said...

Make no mistake about it. The attempt to discredit the blog is aimed directly at your right to know.

Anonymous said...

To distill fear in people you continually post over and over that everyone needs to protect their IP address.

Anonymity has protection under the 1st Amendment, as do political parodies and statements of opinion.

But then, most are out tending their gardens and not aware of your scare tactics or my reply to it.

You think you are winning? Yawn.
Off to Newburyport.

Anonymous said...

"Make no mistake about it. The attempt to discredit the blog is aimed directly at your right to know."

Know what? The latest unsubstantiated rumor. To hear, yet again, the Chief's history. To hear rants from our more mentally unstable residents.

This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's right to know. It has to do entirely with the credibility of the messenger and his personal crusade against anyone associated with town government.

Don't take my word for it. Just go back over all the posts in this blog and you will very quickly see a pattern, and it is not about your right to know.

I fully support and encourage RTK. But, it needs to be done in a forum not controlled by one person who's personal bias has been clearly demonstrated. In some countries with less tolerant governments it is also known as controlling the press.

RE: "Anonymity has protection under the 1st Amendment, as do political parodies and statements of opinion."

You're absolutely right. However, when my posts can be tracked to my IP address, that is no longer anonymity. To be truly anonymous, you need a IP address that cannot be tracked specifically to you. If we all have the same IP address, then we are all truly anonymous.

I'm not promoting fear my friend, I'm promoting prudence and caution. You have a problem with that?

Or are you threatened by it? A similar post happens every time an anonymous proxy is mentioned. It means a loss of control by the moderator. He's the one who's running scared right now. We all see you, the one behind the curtain.

MAcciard said...

To the Anonymous poster June 5, @ 7:10am;

I would like to address a few of your points;

1.) The fire dept. is NOT left out of the "why do they need this" argument. The budget committee, every year, asks chief Murphy about every new equipment purchase, and when I was chairing that committee, we researched independently the costs involved with these items, with the possible exception of like replacements, IE: New ambulance for old ambulance.

2.) Fire dept. does not generally enter into the overexpenditure argument, because when Chief Murphy's budget goes up, he can tell you EXACTLY where and why.

3.) People don't complain about the 7 or 8 multi hundred thousand $ equipment, because fire fighting is a pro-active business. You never know when the fire is going to come, but you can't fight it without the equipment on hand.

4.) No one said bullet proof vests were "fluff", they said that if grants are available for this equipment, why are we not applying, and that is a good question. I had a long discussion with Chief Briggs in Kingston a number of years back, when I was on budget committee, and he told me about how assiduous he is at applying for every grant he can get, to keep his budget down.

5.) Fire chief is an elected position elected by the men of the fire dept. If I am not mistaken, and there are no where near as many qualifications or restrictions on this position as there is for a police offcier, or chief.

6.) What a chip you have on your shoulder, in fact no one ever said "cops suck", as a matter of fact, Atkinson has many very fine officers, well educated, and excellently trained. I think most of the complaints that I read here deal with the administration, never the officers themselves.

7.) What an arrogant assinine statement! Did any Atkinson COPS charge into building two on that fateful day? JACKASS! BOTH Police and FIRE charged into that building, and did their jobs! And did them admirably! Would YOU have that degree of courage?

8.) As to Cpl. Lapham, I don't know anyone that has forgotten him. And his and Sgt. Kinney's loss is STILL being felt by the town and the PD! They were both outstanding individuals. I have known Sgt. Kinney since I was in school. And I sorely miss the long talks I used to have with John when he was working detail at Tornadoes games. But their loss, and strength of character, does not change any of the facts about anyone else in town, including the chief. While you are lamenting the loss of John Lapham, please remember who it was who said that donation acct. money was "not to be used for this" this being helping out his widow and family.

9.) As for the "supposed" hostile attitude towards cops in this town, I don't believe that is true. I have never had any improper interactions with any of the officers on our force, and would speak highly of any of them that I have encountered. Unfortunately, in my humble opinion, any adversity that the officers face in the eyes of the public could be a reaction to some of the chiefs more egregious ( the Court's choice of wording, not mine) actions.

Sorry if I bloviated on this response, but the arrogant, and uninformed comments pissed me off.

MAcciard said...

To June 5, 5:17,

When you speak of the blog moderator having a lawsuit, and using the blog to further it, are you talking about me? or Leon Artus, Brownfield, et al.?

And I am getting confused here, because I remember when the Grant case was going forward, critics were saying SHE moderated the blog, and before that they said I did, before that, it was Brian Kaye, and Jane Cole, or is it just that you choose the litigant du jour?

And what does it matter who moderates? There is not moderation on, anyone can post on this blog.

Maybe you should ask yourself, why so many people feel the need to post anonymously?

If you want to know, I still have the pictures!

Anonymous said...

"There is not(sic) moderation on, anyone can post on this blog."

In one respect, you are right. Anyone can post here.

However, only the moderator can create the topics. Would you say the story posted by the moderator about the Lt. was fair and balanced, especially given how it turned out.

Or, how about this one, "For those who thought our article on the resurrection of the Tower debate was merely "conspiracy theory and rumors", here is your answer. Tonight on the agenda at the selectmens meeting is going to be the discussion of either putting together a committee of police and firemen to look at the tower issue, headed for the third time by Lt. Baldwin!

Or having the technology committee look into it, preferable with Lt. Baldwins direction and guidance!"

Not quite how it worked out, huh. With no facts to back it up, the moderator came up with this fantasy.

In a true discussion forum, any member can create a topic. Here, the moderator can make up his own, or chose which entries to make topics at his discretion, when he's not reprinting ET articles.

Mark, I do not believe you are a moderator. Given the quality of the moderator posts, you're too smart to have written them.

I do believe I know who it is based on what happened at the Deliberative Session. But, I have no proof, only the character of the people involved to go on. After seeing them in action, I think I have them nailed.

Henry said...

From the Blog's front page Mission Statement:
"This Blog is a forum for the discussion of predominantly Atkinson; Officials, People, Ideas, and Events."

Yet the ability to post comments is disabled where the Blog Moderator him/her self may be (rightfully) the object of criticism (The Lt. Baldwin apology thread).

Lame. Very very lame.

Anonymous said...

If you don't like this blog, why not start your own blog? Why not? Then your time is not wasted here. Is it because you want to discredit or do you have a genuine interest in free speech and opinion guaranteed under the constitution. If you have a genuine interest in contributing to free speech, then start your own blog. If you refuse then your intent seems organized merely to discredit.

Anonymous said...

So Mark, the arrogant and uniformed comments of an anon piss you off but not of the moderator? Seems to be a bit of a hypocritical position on your part don't you think? The moderator spews out nonsense but yet apparently you only take issue with anons. While I agree that the 9/11 comment from the anon was over the top, so too are some of the moderators assertions.
As to the clown who thinks there's an organizd effort to discredit the blog, there is not. Free speach is fine, but there are limits. Yelling fire in a crowded theater is not acceptable. Assailing someones reputation based on hear say and rumor also is not acceptable. I believe in legal terms that would be called defamation. Perhaps this is the "free speech and opinion" you wish to protect, however, I ask you this: If it was you being slandered would you be waving the free speech flag?

Anonymous said...

To those who feel there is an organized effort to discredit the blog:

I would think you'd be more interested in reestablishing its credibility rather than attacking those who point out the lack of it. You want to be taken seriously, then start acting like responsible adults rather than junior high children. You want to stop the criticism, well, take away the reasons we criticize it. Consider, for even a brief moment, the criticisms have merit.

Of course, the first place to start is the moderator. Twice in recent weeks he has posted topics based solely on hearsay, rumor, and imagination, and then expected us to take it as the gospel truth. June 6, 2009 9:32 PM points them out. You want to be taken seriously, this has to stop.

Then you have posters like Mr. TQ. who demands answers to his questions, and when he does not get them (and who would want to give him the satisfaction), he makes assumptions based solely on his imagination and accuses the critics of things that very well could be false.

You want credibility, then clean up your act. When you post something you want us to believe is true, don't follow it up with "Trust me". If it is true, prove it.

Don't spread unfounded rumors. Again, June 6, 2009 9:32 PM points out two glaring examples.

For the term "Freedom of Speech" to mean anything, it has to be used responsibly. Going off on long winded rants reiterating what we've heard so many times in the past, or using words like "atrocity" does this blog no favors. It only reinforces what its critics have been trying to tell you but you're too pig headed to hear it.

And, if you dish out criticism of your own, be willing to take it in return. Henry makes a valid point. Many of us felt the apology was back-handed, and when we try to call the Moderator on it, he stops the discussion. Frankly, this was a childish reaction, and certainly not an example of free speech.

If I had the time, I would start a new forum, and not in blog form. The blog format is ill suited for the type of open discussion this town needs. But, I work for a living and have many other commitments. I can only hope that if this blog continues on the track it is on, some more responsible person with the time can offer a more balanced alternative.

I was a true believer in the former blog and helped promote it where I could. Its replacement, so far, has not even approached the level of respect the former had and I place the blame solely on the new moderator. His lack of intellect, his rumor based postings, and his own personal bias’s have made Atkinson Reporter 2 a poor imitation of the real thing.

Anonymous said...

Anon, 6/6, 1:07,

I completely disagree with you. There is no concerted effort on any of the "critics" parts to quell any RTK attempts of any of the citizens of Atkinson.

However, I will point out that your comment is indicative of the problem I, among others, have with what has happened to this blog as of late: you make a careless, blanket statement and back it up with no facts whatsoever.

So, in the interest of being fair, I would be interested in hearing you further explain how the criticisms of this blog's bias are interfering with your, or any of the citizens of Atkinson's, right to know. Can you give one concrete example of this?

I would also like to make another point that was lost in the shuffle here. Regarding the Baldwin story, if it were not for the "critics" pointing out to the moderator that it was wrong for him/her to post the original article without proof, how long would that have been left up there? Indeed, if we did not challenge them, how seriously would they have pursued the story?

Anonymous said...

Regarding our town. There is currently in court a large lawsuit for violation of civil rights and the right to Right To Know law that goes back decades.

Read the following and you have a context for the right to know argument here and the repeated attempts to undermine the right to know.

You read it and then you understand the context.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr. Critic,

Watching you repeatedly post to yourself here, pretending you are multiple people, is a sad commentary about both your life AND your lack of ethics.

You come here to defend a chief of police that bullies his critics, has a fleet of vehicles more appropriate for a city of 60,000 than one of 6,000, and who has cost our town hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees and lawsuit awards. You tried to hide that until you were called out on it here.

No one is listening to you anymore; that's why you are left posting to yourself now! You have zero credibility with anyone with half a brain, so at this point your rants just appear pathetic. Being the stooge of an undefendable man is certainly a sad job to have, so I pity you. Peace be with you.

Anonymous said...

If you don't like what you read here, why keep coming back? You can start your own blog if you think this one's so bad.

Some posters seem awfully intent and diligent about consistently repeating themselves. You could post your anti-blog slander all day long on your own blog. Maybe if you say it enough times we'll start believing you. What an old, tired tactic. if they say it often enough, loud enough and passionately enough then they must be telling the truth! Right? Duh.

Its your right to simply not come back and ignore it all. In other words, just go away if you don't like it here. The bottom line is its drivin you nuts because you cant control it. It sounds like your afraid of something. There's clearly been an offensive push to discredit a blog. I find it funny how much time they waste.

Funny thing is I don't hear anyone slandering the Atkinson Taxpayer Association website and all its documentation supportin a lot of points made here. I wonder why.

Anonymous said...

Now, see, the last two posts are perfect examples of what we've been talking about. Not once in any criticism I've read has the chief been mentioned. Yet, this person (Mr. TQ I assume) has jumped to the conclusion that any criticism of the blog is in reality a defense of the chief. Why is that? And when the weaknesses of the blog are exposed, we're attacking it. Who really is being threaten here?

Here's a news flash for you Mr. TQ. and Mr. Moderator 1) People are indeed listening and that appears to be very threatening to you. 2) The criticisms are directed at the blog, the blog moderator, and it propensity for spreading rumors and making broad statements with nothing to back them up. 3) This has absolutely nothing to do with anyone's RTK. Rather, it has been an attempt to point our the weaknesses of the blog, and once corrected, would enhance everyone's RTK. 4) This has nothing to do with maintaining anonymity. I find it very interesting that when a method is proposed to further enhance anonymity, it is quickly decried as an attempt to reduce it.

I'll leave it to the readership to determine who has more credibility. It certainly does display a degree of hubris on TQ's part to declare there is only one critic and no one is listening. I assure you, this is wishful thinking on your part.

I don't need your pity. Take a look in the mirror and give it to that person.

It has been said before, and I'll say it again. It's not the critics who are undermining this blog, its the supporters.

Anonymous said...

Interesting...I just opened and clicked on the Douglas lawsuit and did a search on it as suggested. There is not one mention of right to know in the entire document.

Anonymous said...

No, it is not the supporters. It is YOU sir, trying to undermine the blog. Everyone knows and it is funny and unconvincing.

Anonymous said... the lawsuit again, idiot!

Anonymous said...

Wow! Mr. Critic is very entertaining. Just shows the mentality of "some" of the townies. Just a sad little town we live in.

Anonymous said...

Don't waste your time arguing with TQ. TQ has rose colored glasses on when it comes to the blog. Of course the only thing that TQ can do is constantly repeat the mantra that there is some sort of concerted effort to try to discredit the blog, however, TQ fails to address ANY of the issues that the various critics have addressed. No TQ, it's not the critics who undermine the blog, it's the blog admin, but continue with your blissful state of denial. As far as RTK, if you want any information go down to town hall and put in a RTK request. The information you receive will be much more accurate than the crap that gets distributed on this blog by the blog administrator. And if any of the information needs to be clarified, go speak to the people involved and get it FIRST hand. The REAL information might just shatter those rose colored glasses you're wearing.

Anonymous said...

"No, it is not the supporters. It is YOU sir, trying to undermine the blog. Everyone knows and it is funny and unconvincing."

Well, it seems the critics are putting up much more convincing arguments than the so called "supporters". And frankly, it's the "supporters" posts that are the funny ones. Clearly, none of you were on a debate team.

Did you ever consider for a moment sir, those critical of the blog may be supporters who are trying to clean it up? Maybe we don't like it when rumor is posted as fact, and when we complain about it, the practice is defended. That sir, is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Most of the time if you are putting in a RTK request for anything interesting, they tell you they can't provide it.

Anonymous said...

"Most of the time if you are putting in a RTK request for anything interesting, they tell you they can't provide it."

Again, a blanket statement with nothing to back it up, and we're supposed to believe it.

Care to give a specific example, and since you use the word "most", examples to back this claim?

Anonymous said...

RE: June 8, 2009 11:45 AM

So, if I have this straight, you are either asking for something that does not exist, like the minutes of that secret meeting the BOS held Christmas morning, or, you are accusing town officials and/or employees of intentionally breaking the RTK law.

Is this what you are implying?

Anonymous said...

The obstructions to the citizens obtaining right to know information combined with violation of the right to know law will be determined in court.

Anonymous said...

Let's sit here all day and deflect attention from the real issues by debating the merit of a blog.

Post away fools, post away. The more you post the more you give credence to the blog. You're feeding the beast by giving it more power as yours is slowly drained right in front of your eyes. The faster and harder you monitor and post replies the less energy and less credibility you have. Its sucking the life right out of you because you can't stop what can't be stopped. You can't see what can't be seen. It's dread man. Truly dread. For some anyway.

Anonymous said...

Ok, you don't agree with the billy story being posted, without verification. I agree.

But the moderator pulled it almost immediately, and that was the right thing to do.

What else that is posted here do you think is false?

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:47 AM said:
" the lawsuit again, idiot!"

Perhaps I am in idiot. I just read the lawsuit again and did not see anything pertaining to RTK. So if you would be so kind as to reference anything in the link you provided to us that backs up your claim that this lawsuit has anything remotely related to RTK, I would appreciate it.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:40,

The moderator pulled it off of the website ONLY AFTER Henry pointed out it was wrong to post it without any proof.

So THE RIGHT THING TO DO was not not defame his character to begin with and not throw it up there and pull it off. That is THE WRONG THING TO DO!

Anonymous said...

June 8, 2009 1:40 PM

As soon as Henry made his point, THE WHOLE TOPIC SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED. Yes I shouting. He allowed it to fester, and towards the end, gave us all his "supposed" evidence and suggested we decide. In no way could his actions here be described as THE RIGHT THING TO DO.

Then, the apology. Some apology. Moderator suggests the story is still true, but can't prove it, says there is a letter from the Kingston Chief denying the whole thing, and when we start picking apart the apology, moderator turns off comments.

Someone asked the question, what if this allegation had been directed at you. Would you think it was handled fairly?

Anonymous said...

"Let's sit here all day and deflect attention from the real issues by debating the merit of a blog."

I think the credibility of the blog is a real issue, and should be discussed. Questions have been raised regarding the integrity of the moderator. If we can't trust the messenger, how can we trust the message.

I think it is the moderator trying to quash this discussion by claiming it is a non issue. I think he's feeling the heat. He can dish it, but can't take it.

Anonymous said...

Uh's supposed to rain tomorrow. Damn you Chief!!!

You can expect to receive a letter from Atty. Douglas shortly! In it, we will claim you made me feel blue from the rainy clouds...and also prevented my right to know.

Anonymous said...

"What else that is posted here do you think is false?"

Well, let's try this one: "For those who thought our article on the resurrection of the Tower debate was merely "conspiracy theory and rumors", here is your answer. Tonight on the agenda at the selectmens meeting is going to be the discussion of either putting together a committee of police and firemen to look at the tower issue, headed for the third time by Lt. Baldwin!

Or having the technology committee look into it, preferable with Lt. Baldwins direction and guidance!"

Now, if you recall, he got this one completely wrong. Now, doesn't this make you want to ask the question, where does he get this information? Does he make it up? Does he have a group of little birdies that lurk around town hall and feed him these tid bits? Does he hang around the Post Office or the General Store and listen in on conversations? Whatever source, they have not exactly been the most reliable, have they?

How far back would you like to go?

But, oh, I'm sorry. I'm detracting from the real issues and no one is paying attention anyways.

Anonymous said...

Chicken little you must feed the beast. The blog is falling the blog is falling! Our world is ending because of this nasty blog! Somebody stop this crazy blog I cant take it anymore! I am running in circles waving my hands in the air yelling.

Moderator can't take the heat! Moderator is trying to quash!

Somebody save me from these pixels in cyberspace posted by anonymous evildoers that are trying to take over Atkinson!

Drat this evil blog. It must go before somebody believes anything here.

Anonymous said...

Actually moderator had the tower resurrection story correct. That WAs the gist of the original emails from Bennet to Tech committee and that is how it was presented originally.

That they decided to change it only happened because tech committee raised hell that they were being used as political tool.

Anonymous said...

How funny, you ream the blog for posting a story without on the record verification, but the apology, which isnt verified either you believe totally. Blog sayd apparently there is a letter, this isnt any more sure than the original story, but you take this as proof positive that the original story was bogus.
who has the agenda here?

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:06,

Good point! However, it further proves the moderator was completely off-base with this story and they never should have posted the topic to begin with.

And Anon 3:49 (#1), thanks for posting facts to back-up your statements. This is something the right to know folks have yet to do, despite challenges to do so.

Anonymous said...

"Actually moderator had the tower resurrection story correct. That WAs the gist of the original emails from Bennet to Tech committee and that is how it was presented originally.

That they decided to change it only happened because tech committee raised hell that they were being used as political tool."

No, actually you have it completely wrong. And, I watched the BOS meeting that night. Sure didn't appear the head of the Tech Committee was raising hell. If I recall, he was for the idea. It was Bill Friel who did not want the Tech Committee to take on the task. I also recall Bill Bennett strongly advocating for a committee of technical people only. I don't believe that includes Lt. Baldwin. The only thing the moderator got right was that a committee was going to investigate the radio problem. Every other detail was wrong.

But, hey, if you want to rewrite history, be my guest. It's just those darn facts that make it hard, huh.

Anonymous said...

June 8, 2009 3:49 PM

Why do you feel so threaten by this discussion. After all, isn't open discussion in the charter of the blog?

Questions are being asked, and response all we get are posts like yours. Well done.

Anonymous said...

"The obstructions to the citizens obtaining right to know information combined with violation of the right to know law will be determined in court."

And we're still waiting to hear what those obstructions are.

June 8, 2009 11:45 AM was asked to provide at least one example. All I'm hearing is talk, not proof.

Anonymous said...

Anon 4:29, have you noticed that whenever any of the folks complaining about the Chief, Lt, or obstruction of RTK are asked to backup their statements, their typical response is why are you attempting to discredit this blog?

Why is that?

Anonymous said...

"That WAs the gist of the original emails from Bennet to Tech committee and that is how it was presented originally."

BTW, how would you know what the original emails said??????

Anonymous said...

"Why is that?"

Very good question, and I wish I knew the answer. We try to ascertain the facts and all we get back is gibberish.

The critics provide evidence, the supporters make fantastic claims. One could read a lot into that.

If one were to complain about one the usual topics, the supporters are all for it. We question the integrity of the and it moderator, and give supporting documentation, and they go ape s***. I think a nerve has been hit.

Oh, Oh, and I love this part. They bring out Mr. TQ to lodge an attack, and he comes off like he's still studying junior high English. Pure entertainment.

Anonymous said...

The more votes read the Douglas lawsuit on the Atkinson Taxpayer Association website, the more voters wake up. Yes! Yes! Yes! And there is nothing you can do but stew and spew. I love it.

Anonymous said...

Well then, I'll consider myself stew'd and spew'd. Kind of a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Anonymous said...

Here's a simple question.

Are any of the principals in the Douglas lawsuit in anyway associated with the running of this blog?

We all know there are certain people in Atkinson who have filed actions against the town, but also have a passion for other issues, like Right to Know.

I think the readers of this blog deserve to know the motivations of moderator(s). Is it really for the public good, or is it simply self serving?

Yes, yes, I know, we all have a right to anonymity. However, if the moderators are pursuing a different agenda, don't we have a right to know, and I emphasize, RIGHT TO KNOW.

Anonymous said...

Forget it. You will never get an honest answer to this question.

More likely we'll see posts like how the critics are trying to divert attention away from the real issues.

Well, I think anyone suing the citizens, the taxpayers, is a real issue and we should know the truth.

Sadly, history has shown, there ain't none here.

Anonymous said...

Well, we know for a fact now Mark has (or as recently as last week had)some type of administrative capacity with this blog. And he does have a lawsuit out against the town.

One cannot help but wonder why he was so quickly removed as a team member, once it was pointed out it was on the AR2 profile. As Henry said, "very very lame."

It should come as no surprise really that the same lawsuit happy crew are the ones running this rag. Bully pulpit, eh?

Atkinson Reporter said...

To answer June 8, 2009 @ 8:45pm;

No, None of the Moderators on this blog are Plaintiffs in the Artus/Douglass suit.

Keep Guessing!

Anonymous said...

Dear AR2,

Since you encourage us to keep guessing, would you kindly tell us if you are a plaintiff in any other lawsuits against the town, its elected officials, or town employees?

Also, would you explain why Mr. Acciard is no longer team member of your blog?

Anonymous said...


Just drivin you nuts aint it?

Anonymous said...

I'm confused. The Moderator makes this statement, "No, None of the Moderators" This would imply there is more than one.

However, there was this recent post: "Monday, May 11, 2009
The Atkinson Reporter would like to apologize for the lack of content over the last two weeks. The Blog Administrator was on vacation in the Carribean, and did not have access to the internet. We will seek to rectify this situation for the future. Again we humbly apologize to our regular readers. "

Here we have only one moderator, and indeed, no new topics were entered while he was away.

Did the blog gain a new moderator since then? Or, is the moderator being less than honest with us?

We know his gift for spreading rumors and his talent for embellishment.

Why should we believe him? After all, if he is a plaintiff, disclosing that to us would strongly suggest who he his.

No. I think he will deny anything that might lead us to the truth.

Anonymous said...

AR tells us to keep guessing. Like a child sticking out his tongue going "Nah nah nah nahhhh nahhhh nah! You can't guess who I am!" What a pathetic person. First the rumors, half truths, and slander, and now this.

Mark, the blog was much better when you ran it. Any chance you can fire up the old one again? This one is a joke.

Anonymous said...

There is a difference between "administrator" and "moderator" isn't there?

Anonymous said...

"There is a difference between "administrator" and "moderator" isn't there?"

No difference, just terminology. Whatever you chose to call him, this person is the only one who can create topics, turn on/off comments, delete comments, track blog stats, etc.

MAcciard said...

I've gotta be honest with you guys, I am SOOOOO relieved to hear that there is no concerted effort on the part of our town officials to discover who is behind the blog.

whew! I thought this effort was costing the town money!

especially when they have spend many HOURS of BOTH expensive attorney time, and Court Reporter time to depose people to ask questions about the blog ownership in the 2 Grant Cases, my case, and I am certain this pattern will be repeated in the current Federal Suit. Not to mention all those interrogatory questions, and for what logical purpose, I wonder?

By the Way, the blog was not an issue in ANY of these cases. But hey it is only insurance company money, ultimately paid by the taxpayers, right?

Anonymous said...

Anon. @ 6:53 A.M. , I question why you are writing the site when you call it a RAG ! If its such a bully pulpit I'd think you'd be the first not to respond to the site or its contents. The proof is in the pudding you wrote by saying what you did in the last of your message . I'll quote - " It should come as no surprise that the same LAWSUIT HAPPY CREW are the ones running this rag. Bully Pulpit , eh? You must have a guilty conscience because I think its you or some one close to you who have caused the lawsuits.

Anonymous said...

The only one who may make a concerted effort to find out who the blog admin is would be the Lt if he decides to sue. But that would be easy enough to discover should that come to pass. Oh yeah, that's right Mark, I forgot, you don't disapprove of any of the content that the blog admin posts. My mistake. Carry on.

MAcciard said...

I disapprove of alot of what is said, both by the mods, and come of the commentators, but that was not my point, and to the poster who thought that the only person interested in finding out who owns the blog is the Lt. I have news for you.

So far Lt. Baldwin has not been involved in any of the lawsuits, and therefore has not used taxpayer funded attornies, and court reporters to try and find out who is behind the blog. But the other defendants have. And the blog was not even brought up in those suits, so why do you think they have gone to those lengths just to find out who is behind this.

And moreover, do you think that is the proper use of your tax dollars?

Anonymous said...

We could flat out name the moderator, but he won't admit it if we're right. That's just the nature of an anonymous blog.

I wouldn't think any town officials are spending their time figuring out who he is. Why bother. Given the way this thing has been running lately, it isn't a threat to anyone.

What would help is for the Moderator to clean up his act. First we have the two posts with his outlandish claims regarding the new communications committee. The only thing he got right, there was going to be a new committee. He got everything else dead wrong.

Then, we get the Lt. story. The whole thing was a mess, from the original accusation, which I read before he took it down, allowing the thread to continue and near the end an attempt to justify his actions, claiming the story was true, with still no verification.

To add insult to injury, the apology. Some apology. He basically says he still believes everything is true, but since he can't prove it, he apologizes.

Blog supporters are angry at those who point these thing out but their arguments are weak, often childish,and poorly written.

This blog has a credibility crisis and the Moderator and his supporters refuse to acknowledge it. Someone mentioned Rose Colored Glasses. Must have been a big sale on.

If things continue on as they have been, this place will only be good for it entertainment value and a venue for the usual, reoccurring, rants. RTK anyone?

First suggestion. Don't post a story when all you have is rumor and no supporting facts. Want to be taken seriously, behave seriously.

Anonymous said...

If this blog were to go away another would appear and before long everyone would go to that one. The old schoolers around here just don't get new technology the next generation operates with.

I hear people reference documentation on the Atkinson Taxpayer Committee website which has lots of good stuff. I suppose its got no credibility either cause the anti-bloggers don't like being exposed.

You waste your time trying to take down a blog. All you do is give it credence by attacking it. There's gotta be a lot of truth going on here or some embarrassed folks wouldn't be griping so hard. In fact, I believe it must all be true. I think the blogmaster is a good, honest hardworking Atkinsonian that just wants what's best for the town. Free speech and access to information inquiring minds want to know. I think the blog is just great! Blog on blogmaster blog on!

Anonymous said...

"You waste your time trying to take down a blog. All you do is give it credence by attacking it. There's gotta be a lot of truth going on here or some embarrassed folks wouldn't be griping so hard. In fact, I believe it must all be true. I think the blogmaster is a good, honest hardworking Atkinsonian that just wants what's best for the town. Free speech and access to information inquiring minds want to know. I think the blog is just great! Blog on blogmaster blog on!"

You have utterly and totally missed the whole point. We're not trying to take down the blog. It needs to be cleaned up. And Free Speech is not a license to slander and to totally misrepresent the facts.

Whether I like the person or not, when I see the kind of accusations made against the Lt. with the only supporting evidence is "a lot of somebodies said" that is very disturbing to me. That, my friend, does not give credence, it only demeans it.

And, I don't care, and it does not matter, if the moderator is a good, honest hardworking Atkinsonian or a trust fund baby. Making up stories based on rumor and passing them off as the truth is just plain wrong.

"There's gotta be a lot of truth going on here or some embarrassed folks wouldn't be griping so hard."

Please, tell me what truth you are referring to? See, that's the problem, we've been given no truth.

Several times in this thread the question has been asked, what violation of the Right to Know law occurred? We keep hearing it happened, but at the same time no details are provided. That is not truth. That is avoiding the question. If someone avoids the question, then one is left to wonder if there is anything there or not.

So, if you want to continue to think things are just find and dandy, go ahead. And while you are there, let us know what color the sky is in this alternate universe. In the meantime, if the bad behavior continues, there are plenty of us ready to point it out.

Anonymous said...

Did you put any chapstick on before you laid your lips all over the blog admins ass?

Anonymous said...

"Did you put any chapstick on before you laid your lips all over the blog admins ass?"

Typical blog supporter response. You just continue to make our point you jackass.

Oh, BTW, this is from the Blog preamble. Don't believe it, it's right there.

"You may give opinion, fact, or evaluation, but ad hominum personal attacks will not be tolerated, or published. "

Isn't that exactly what the Moderator did? He posted a career (job to you blue collar types) damaging accusation and offered diddly for proof.

Is that OK with you? You threaten a man's livelihood with an unproven rumor, and that's fine, because, hey, this is the Atkinson Reporter 2 Blog. Never mind what the Moderator's charter says. Its a good story. It is a ripe target. Screw the evidence.

It has been stated many times before in this post. It's not the critics bringing down the blog, its the moderator and his supporters. It is imploding from within and all the supporters can do is post asinine responses. When will you realize, you are doing the critics job for them?

So, please, keep up the attacks on the critics. We welcome them. We encourage them. The best you've managed so far is to prove our point. Keep up the good work boys and girls. Your town needs you.

Anonymous said...

Last Word Person strikes again. This poster must be religious cause his preaching just doesn't end.

OMG will you please dry up? You've said the same thing like 57 times in this thread alone.

This is a stinkin blog for petes sake. Take your "you gotta prove your point in court" attitude elsewhere. Nobody in this realm has to meet YOUR standards of hard proven fact so shut up already. ITS A BLOG. GET IT? END OF STORY. We don't have to clean up anything. We live in a messy house and by god we like it that way. This is the only blog I've ever read that has Chicken Littles running around whining like a bunch of pansies about the quality of the blog moderation and the content and prove-it-in-court demands. My goodness if you havent figured out by now nobody is preparing for your court case here. We could care less. Your cluttering up the space with your endless whining. I'm getting blisters on my scroll finger having to scroll past so many of your useless posts.

Initially I felt bad about the incorrect story about the Lt. Now I'm so sick of your endless bitching about it, why don't you just go file your lawsuit and be done with it?

Let me spell it out for you. Gossip, rumors, lies, spin and maybe a few facts rule the blog and cyberspace domain. Its called free speech and theres this thing called the constitution. If you want documented facts, go read the documents on the Atkinson Taxpayer Comittee website. LOTS of facts over there I don't see you talking about. Why don't you gripe about that website? I'm sure you can come up with something.

MOST of us are smart enough to know where facts need verification and when a story can be dismissed as gossip. Believe it or not we can think for ourselves and don't need anyone to do it for us. Last I checked gossip is not illegal. If it was you'd have us all locked up.

Anonymous said...

Anon 12:56 AM said:

"Let me spell it out for you. Gossip, rumors, lies, spin and maybe a few facts rule the blog and cyberspace domain."

I agree. And as long as we are clear on that sentiment, I have no problem with what goes on here. That said, I think your comment does not help the moderator and the blog supporters when they are encouraging others to come here to learn the truth about Atkinson.

Anonymous said...

But, I said before, and you have never responded;

Moderator said billy did something. Said he was told, but no record to verify. Then apologized because he couldnt verify. Said he HEARD there was a letter in support of LT.

BOTH of these, the story, and the apology are based on the same hearsay.

WHY do you believe the apology hearsay as gospel, without giving the original story the same level of belief?

Anonymous said...

"There's gotta be a lot of truth going on here or some embarrassed folks wouldn't be griping so hard."

"Let me spell it out for you. Gossip, rumors, lies, spin and maybe a few facts rule the blog and cyberspace domain."

I guess those two statements really sum it up. One says there is truth here. Another says we are to expect gossip, rumors and lies.

The moderator states in his charter there will be no personal attacks, yet he turns around and does just that.

Summation - Just a lot of people screaming they are right and you are wrong. Come here for the truth, but it is probably a lie.

Tbe blog is what it is. A lot of belly aching, truths, half-truths, and lies. Not the place to go if you want the real story.

Someone stated awhile back the critics were taking up file space. The real waste is this sorry mess. Bye.

Anonymous said...

I sense the town fathers no longer view the blog with any seriousness. It has incurred a lot of self inflicted damage and no longer a credible threat.

Now, this is not to say opportunities won't arise with which the blog can make hay. Jack has always been very good with providing material. He always needs to get his 2 cents in at the BOS meeting. Keep an eye on those.

However, I would be very careful on the rumor front. It is what got this blog into this mess. Opinions are your right. Spreading false or unsubstantiated rumors is not free speech, it's slander.

Anonymous said...


Does anyone know what's going on at our Village Store? My daughter was in the other day and noted changes which indicate George is closing down?

That store has been there since 1900! I'm upset.

Anonymous said...

I asked a couple back. They are remodeling.

Anonymous said...

sheesh, one bad story based on rumors, and everyone crucifies the blog.

If only you guys were as hard on our town officials who lie to us on a regular basis.

Anonymous said...

"sheesh, one bad story based on rumors, and everyone crucifies the blog."

In this case, it was really bad and the criticism was justified. As was pointed out, the Moderator violated his own rules.

This blog is very hard on people who misbehave in public. Don't we have the right to do the same to the blog when it misbehaves?

"If only you guys were as hard on our town officials who lie to us on a regular basis."

So everyone of our town officials lie. That's terrible. All of them? Would you also include those who volunteer their time to the town?

Anonymous said...

I never said ALL of them lie, now who is twisting words?

I said town officials who lie, that doesn't mean that ALL of them do but there are a few who do it routinely!

Anonymous said...

Twist words. Who here would ever do such a thing?

Anonymous said...

Why does everyone here bash the critics of this blog? Seems to me they are making good points. The more you bash the critics, the more you give them credence. The more you give them CREDENCE!

Anonymous said...

Just from observation, let me take a shot at that question.

If you look at the original topic of this post you will notice it has strayed far from that. Why?

Well, we've had recent posts from the blog administrator that seem to have little basis in fact. In the last case he does the right thing and apologizes. However, to many, it was not much of an apology but rather a statement the story could not be proved. This started a lively response. After 7 posts, the blog administrator turns off comments. This would suggest he can't tolerate criticism.

Then, we have the so called "blog supporters." Their attitude suggests any criticism of the blog, and through some weird connection, is a declaration of support for the chief, even though he is never mentioned.

Now, take a look at the writing styles of those posting. This tells a lot about a person. Is his grammar correct? Does he punctuate correctly? Is his spelling correct? After this you study the content.

The critics, I believe, have come up with valid points and presented them in a well thought out, logical manner. The supporters, on the other hand, resort to claims that no one is listening and make wild, unsubstantiated claims about the critics.

I'm sorry to say, there appears to be a group of highly educated posters who question what is going on, and another group of less educated posters offering defenses that can be best characterized as childish.

So, the battle will continue. The smart ones will point out the flaws, the dumb ones will accuse them of taking away their freedom of speech or their right to know (though we still do not know what exactly that problem is).

In the real world, this would not be a fair contest. Unfortunately, in this world the blog administrator and his supporters appear to belong to the latter group and you just cannot argue with a rock.

Sorry if this was too many words. Try and keep up, will you.

Anonymous said...

Ya know, something's buggin' me about the posts lately. No chief bashin'. He must have the mind control machine on real hahd taday.

Anonymous said...

In addition to the RTK proof requests, we've yet to receive an explanation about Mark Acciard's removal as as a team member on this blog. For all of their clamoring about right to know, they remain suspiciously silent when the shoe is on the other foot.

Anonymous said...

"No chief bashin'"

That's because this is not about the chief, though I wouldn't be surprised at some lame attempt to steer the discussion that way.

This is about the blog and person who runs it. His integrity is being questioned and I'm guess'in he doesn't much like it. Indeed, the shoe is on the other foot.

Anonymous said...

What integrity?

Anonymous said...

to Anon June 10, 2009 10:16 PM

You said "Now, take a look at the writing styles of those posting. This tells a lot about a person. Is his grammar correct? Does he punctuate correctly? Is his spelling correct? After this you study the content.

I'm sorry to say, there appears to be a group of highly educated posters who question what is going on, and another group of less educated posters offering defenses that can be best characterized as childish."

wow you is arrogant. and not very savvy either. It pays to be cautious in this town because we know people like you exist. Puctuation and gramer errors could be by design so that our writting stiles caint be traked. DUH.

You underestimate your opposition by miles. It reminds me of arrogant King whats-his-name said during the American revolution. He didn't like the American cowards that hid behind rocks and trees and thought less of them for it. Now you tell me who is the real fool here King George?

yes typos and grammer in this post very bad. By your thinking it makes you smarter than me. You should go on thinking that way whilst I eat your lunch.

Anonymous said...

Don't worry. Your ignorance shines through even without the gramatical errors. Spelling and punctuation errors aside, the general content shows what small minded inDUHviduals we are dealing with. Now run along and steal some more lunches...

Anonymous said...

Thank you King George for making my point. I have no need to steal lunches when they're handed to me. I must say the lunch was excellent. Monitoring the blog quite closely we see. Let' see how long it takes for you to post again (burp).

Anonymous said...

Hey Mr. TQ. A kid is nearly killed and your response is a homophobic ditty. Way to go man.

Note to June 11, 2009 2:52 PM: This is who you're defending. Must make you proud.

Anonymous said...

Spelling grammar ain't portant fer this heer blog. Mark Twain got hisself a train load of mullah ussin bad grammear in dem books. LOOK...Huck Finn...

"Never you mind, honey, never you mind. Don't you git too peart. It's a-comin'. Mind I tell you, it's a-comin'."

Anonymous said...

"I didn' know dey was so many un um. I hain't
hearn 'bout none un um, skasely, but ole King Soller-
mun, onless you counts dem kings dat's in a pack er
k'yards. How much do a king git?"

"Get?" I says; "why, they get a thousand dollars
a month if they want it; they can have just as much
as they want; everything belongs to them."

En what dey got to do, Huck?"

"THEY don't do nothing! Why, how you talk!
They just set around."

"No; is dat so?"

Anonymous said...

"Looky here, Jim; does a cat talk like we do?"

"No, a cat don't."

"Well, does a cow?"

"No, a cow don't, nuther."

"Does a cat talk like a cow, or a cow talk like a

"No, dey don't."

"It's natural and right for 'em to talk different from
each other, ain't it?"


"And ain't it natural and right for a cat and a cow
to talk different from US?"

"Why, mos' sholy it is."

"Well, then, why ain't it natural and right for a
FRENCHMAN to talk different from us? You answer me

"Is a cat a man, Huck?"


"Well, den, dey ain't no sense in a cat talkin' like a
man. Is a cow a man? -- er is a cow a cat?"

"No, she ain't either of them."

"Well, den, she ain't got no business to talk like
either one er the yuther of 'em. Is a Frenchman a


"WELL, den! Dad blame it, why doan' he TALK like
a man? You answer me DAT!"

Anonymous said...

"Can you spell, Buck?"

"Yes," he says.

"I bet you can't spell my name," says I.

"I bet you what you dare I can," says he.

"All right," says I, "go ahead."

"G-e-o-r-g-e J-a-x-o-n -- there now," he says.

"Well," says I, "you done it, but I didn't think
you could. It ain't no slouch of a name to spell --
right off without studying."

Anonymous said...

June 11, 2009 10:12 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about. Perhaps you should reread the post and see if I'm defending anyone. When I say someone is small minded, that's an attack, not a defense.

Anonymous said...

Yooz dum blog posters best get yoself some skoolin so yooz can be reel smart like the King man theya.
Yup. yall dum as a rok. He sho is smat. Wishd I wuz him. LOL

Anonymous said...

Did you see how rainy it was? And it is cloudy...and on a Friday. The Chief is meanie and makes me bluesy. And it is his fault...for everything! And I am glad there is this here blog to let me vent my frustrations. And vent them anonymously to boot, cause let's face it, Chiefy would chase me.

Anonymous said...

The sky is clearing. Thanks Chief! You're the greatest!!!

Anonymous said...

My doctor gave me a suppository. Damn you Chief!

Anonymous said...

My wife is complaining to me. Damn you Chief!

Anonymous said...

Useless comments. its a good thing you find yourselves amusing. Why don't we revisit all the lawsuit documents & complaint documents and news articles and point out why your friend gets blamed for so much? Shall we revisit it all again? Glad to.

Anonymous said...

Yes, the comments are useless, so let's talk about something relevant, like how the same group of people have a bunch of lawsuits out against the town. Hmmm....that's a new one!!!

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's because the Town Selectmen asked for them for not doing their job?

Anonymous said...

I look forward to your candidacy so you can correct that.

Anonymous said...

Sue everybody!

Anonymous said...

Not sue everybody. Just those who violate the voters rights.

Anonymous said...

No! Sue everybody!

Anonymous said...

Speaking of suing - I'd still like to what this Right To Know suit is all about. What was asked for and not delivered that led to such a drastic action? Come on. Must be a doozy. Please share.

Anonymous said...

Actually, it is NOT a right to know suit. Interestingly the blog supporters were asked to provide proof of this and they came up empty.

Anonymous said...

The Lakers are NBA champs! Chief's fault.

Anonymous said...

ACTUALLY it is a Right to Know Suit and MORE. Suggest you read it again as I did at:

I'm guessing you are a defendant, so if you don't understand it this time have your taxpayer paid attorneys explain it to you.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:44 PM,

Please show me where in the lawsuit RTK is mentioned or where they cite examples of town officials breaking any RTK laws.

I've read the lawsuit and cannot find anything to support your claim.

Anonymous said...

For a person saying they are educated and highly intelligent. I am curious why you read but don't understand.

Anonymous said...

Dear June 16, 8:01,

I've read the case and I understand the alleged civil rights violations regarding the deliberative session and incidents with the chief. However, I've said repeatedly I see nothing in the case regarding RTK. In addition, I've said, perhaps I am foolish and simply missing it, but can someone here point out where in the case it is cited that there was a RTK violation.

This request has been met with silence or snarky, childish comments like yours. It does not, however, respond to the request and it indicates you have something to hide or, even worse, have no idea what you are talking about.

So please prove me to be a fool. Make me feel like I wasted my time attending university. Where does it state anywhere, or show examples, in the case it is about Right to Know?

Anonymous said...

The RTK or not RTK is irrelevant in my opinion. The problem is the multiple lawsuits for the same problem over and over again generated by the same person our chief and him never facing punishment for his crimes. I'm sorry I meant alleged crimes. RTK, civil rights, voters rights, freedom of speech. The court will decide what was violated. Get out your wallets taxpayers cause our insurance rates are going up up up!

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:43 PM,

I would accept this as an admission that you do not know what you are talking about then.

The RTK part is not important? How about it isn't in the lawsuit. This is yet another example of the way the truth is highjacked by some local troublemakers in town. And although you are correct in your statement about the same person being the target of the lawsuit, you conveniently left out that it is the same group of clowns doing the suing.