Atkinson Town Hall
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
"Pleasure Vehicle" on the Job!
The Norman Rockwellian picture of Atkinson
Consentinos Off camera obscenity
Consentino Obscene gestures off camera
Your Tax dollars at work!
"Pleasure Vehicle" on the Job!
Links
- Atkinson Factor
- Atkinson Reporter Presidential
- Atkinson Taxpayers Association
- Atkinson Water Forum
- Coalition of NH Taxpayers
- Danville Delivery
- Lawrence Eagle Tribune- NH News
- NH Insider
- Original Atkinson Reporter
- Plaistow Town Crier
- Raymond Taxpayers.org
- Timberlane Parents Forum
- Timberlane Schools
- Timberlane Tidbits
- Timberlane and Sandown
- Town of Atkinson, NH.
- policemisconduct.net
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(200)
-
▼
May
(8)
- Atkinson administrator's post draws 60 application...
- Atkinson creates panel to study emergency communic...
- Henry's comment was fair and Accurate. The Baldwin...
- Atkinson looks for solutions to radio communicatio...
- State says Atkinson can start field construction
- Heard Around Town: Chief is trying to resurrect th...
- Apology!
- Atkinson to seek new administrator
-
▼
May
(8)
49 comments:
Fair and accurate, but awaiting confirmation. Duh???
Is this like Fox News being "fair and balanced" when, in reality, we know they are anything but?
OH SURE, and ABC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, NBC, PBS, the NY Times, Boston Globe, Wash. Post, etc.
THOSE are all fair and balanced, right?
Guess its upon ones eye and the brain to think and through the swill published today. Instead of publishing the news as it is they all give their embellishments and try to sway public opinion as they see it. They forget that in the end truth will win out ---but unfortunately!! --it will be before their maker and not us in our time. G B A , that being God Bless America and not good bye ,I leave the "A" up to you to decide its meaning.
Anon 7:16,
They might not be fair and balanced. However, they do not have that as their slogan either.
I'm lost what are you talking about "henry's" comments
Comments are smoking hot and lots of smoke. Wonder what's up. Did Baldwin sign up for an education? Is it Yale? Cornell? Stanford?
Ah yeah, the rumour about the cell tower was correct, and so is this rumour about such. Get over it.
The rumor about the cell tower is "correct"? That's funny because I heard Bennett say very clearly that the voters do not want a tower in the center of town. Could it be that they might be looking for a different solution? Just maybe? It's unbelievable how much misinformation suddenly becomes "correct".
The facts of what happened at Monday's BOS meeting are easy to determine and to verify. I believe the library keeps copies of the meeting. You question what was said, watch it. It is that simple.
I watched the meeting and the only thing Mr. Bennett said about the word "tower" is that they were not going to use the term.
If you watch the tape you will see that Mr. Bennett's goal is to solve a problem that is known to exist, and use people who know what they are doing to help solve it. How that gets translated into "The Tower In The Middle Of Town Is Back" is either based on misinformation the writer received, or writer is deliberately trying to discredit, for whatever reason, Mr. Bennett's and now the BOS's, logical approach to the problem.
The rumor May 21, 2009 6:48 AM says about the tower is not correct, and no matter how many times you try to say it is, the truth will remain the same. This is not,"Tell a lie enough times it becomes truth."
My suspicion is that May 21, 2009 6:48 AM is trying to spawn discord, damn the facts.
More pork $$$$$$
We have ourselves a one trick pony I see...
Probably Mr. 3 questions.
Three questions:
What... is your name?
What... is your quest?
What... is your favorite color?
I should have known this whole blog is really part of a Monty Python skit!
The Blog's article never said anything about the tower in the center of town. It said the issue is being raised again.
Jack said at the meeting that they have already looked into this twice and know what they need.
The blog never said that eh? Here's a cut and paste from the first blog article on the topic:
Could Mr. Bennett's insistance on Baldwin's participation on this committee, have to do with his totally partisan viewpoint that Atkinson's "communications crisis" can only be solved with a 180' phallic symbol in the center of town?Me thinks reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits.
is that an unwarranted question given the original pressure to put baldwin on tech comm.
You say the original pressure to put Baldwin on the tech comm as though it was fact. The blog administrator made this ASSERTION that this was the case, but no proof has been shown. I guess we're supposed to take the blog's administrators word as gospel then are we? This person clearly has an ax to grind. The comments should be taken with a grain of salt. But if you do believe everything anyone tells you, I have a great investment opportunity for you! Act now before it's too late!
Readers: Please keep in mind that many of the above critical comments above are from someone that supports the chief, Harold Morse and HAWC, and business as usual in Atkinson!
This Blog owners assertion that the upcoming tower committee is just a dog-and-pony show with a predetermined outcome is exactly what the first committee was, so Mr. Critic's hysterical comments are a little empty.
May 21, 2009 3:56 PM got it exactly right. The moderator in the last paragraph of that diatribe got it completely wrong. He heard a few words, maybe at the Post Office or the convenience store, and spun a whole fairy tale around it. If anyone thinks for one moment the moderator is not biased, that post proves it.
And then May 21, 2009 3:13 PM tries to perpetuate this flight of fancy. Rather than criticize someone regarding his reading comprehension, maybe the blogger saw it for what it was, BS.
Before posting that tower story, or the Baldwin rumor, which is still that (and given the time that has passed and looking more and more like that) the moderator may try to practice what they do in the real news world, make sure the story is true first.
This blog doesn't need bozos like Mr. 3 questions to prove this blogs irrelevance, the moderator is doing just fine all by himself.
"This Blog owners assertion that the upcoming tower committee is just a dog-and-pony show with a predetermined outcome is exactly what the first committee was, so Mr. Critic's hysterical comments are a little empty."
You have proof of that, right?
If I recall, you never did ascertain Mr. Critic's allegiances. You proclaimed them because he was probably unwilling to stoop to your level. You made assumptions, and they could very well be wrong. How do you know? He could very well have been baiting you, and from the looks of it, it is not hard to do.
So tell me, when did you stop beating your wife?
This whole thread should be deleted. The very title suggests something that may not be true. Deleting it is the really fair thing to do.
The name of this blog should be changed from Atkinson Reporter2 to Atkinson Rumor Mill. "Heard around town..." Nothing but repostings of news stories or gossip. Nothing here to see folks. Move along...
To Clarify, I think the committee as proposed made up of independent ENGINEERS, looking into the communications issue OBJECTIVELY, without political bias or pressure, or useless political hacks on the committee who try to steer the conclusion, would be great!
The problem with the first two committees is that they started with a conclusion, and figured out how to get there, rather than assessing the problem, then figuring out the most cost effective way to solve it.
As Blog Administrator, my role is to start the conversation, once going, I rarely participate, This is a place for you to comment.
Look how busy Mr. Critic is! He must post every 30 minutes!
Look how busy three questions is chasing around "Mr Critic". What three questions hasn't quite yet figured out is that there is more than one person with a dissenting opinion posting here. But in three questions simple little mind, they're all one person.
Three questions goes ahead and attacks one poster who very accurately pointed out that the blog administrator is posting unsubstantiated rumor. Instead of showing proof, three questions response is to try to discredit the poster. In the process, the only one who is discredited is three questions.
Here is a challenge to the blog administrator. Provide some proof for your assertions. Let the readers know exactly how you obtained this information that you are posting as fact and provide the supporting documentation to prove what you say is true. If you can't do that, then that shows us this is nothing more than a rumor mill and you are engaging in unethical behavior by posting it. The ball's in your court Atkinson Reporter.
First, FNN is only the "Fascist New Network" to people that think the rest of the media is not biased. And Ted Kennedy think of himself as a centrist, not the loony lefty that he is.
On the radio issue, the fact is that the best set up is digital hand units, repeaters in the car trunks and maybe a new tower or upgrading the equipment on the existing tower. The problem actually started when some brainiac chose Motorola for the "digital upgrade." M was dragged kicking and screaming into developing digital radios. And they only did it after they lost too much business to smaller competitors who kicked their behind. M suffers from big dog syndrome in their land mobile radio division.
The town should have gone to the company that supplied supplemental radios to NYC in the aftermath of 911 and provides temporary systems for major events like the super bowl. Oh, an back in the summer hurricane season from hell in Florida, theirs was the only communication system working during the worst of the blasts, I believe it was Andrew.
No I do not work for that company. Used to, in a different division than the one that does the radio systems.
As for LT? He was taught by Phil, has never spoken up against the, at least, unethical actions of Phil. So one may not be to far off base assuming a story that is not flattering about him is true is a low risk assumption.
That's a great diatribe, but your logic is flawed. I ran a red light once and got a ticket. Does that now mean that I always run red lights? I challenged Atkinson Reporter to provide some proof of some of his or hers assertions, like that Bennett was presuring the tech comm for instance. Or that a tower is being pushed for. Because the blog owner heard something going around town it now becomes fact? Atkinson Reporter, if you can't back up your assertions then stick to reposting the ET articles. But I don't need to go here to get those. I won't hold my breath waiting for you to produce any proof because I think we all know the reality, you have none.
So when is Henry going to fill us in on the firing-of-Baldwin-from-the-Kingston-PD-for-sleeping-in-his-cruiser-rumor?
It wasn't Henry. It was the Moderators irresponsible behavior that lead to this thread. Henry pointed out that no credible evidence had been produced to support the claim.
The Moderator removed the original post, which was quite damaging, but he did not remove the tread.
So, address your question to the Moderator. Where are the facts? What is the truth? If the original claim is not true, why is this subject still here????
I think I know why. The Moderator has it in for the LT. Whether he is right or wrong, he has let what is probably a false accusation hang.
That is irresponsible behavior and the Moderator should be ashamed.
Out of fairness to Lt. Baldwin, this story will not be posted on this board until we can confirm it.
Here is what we know;
1.) A Kingston Officer, whom we know, told us the original story, but will not go "on the record".
2.) A State Police officer we know, told us that he "heard about that, but won't say anything, and doesn't want to get involved."
3.) A Plaistow Officer has said that Billy is saying he "quit Kingston"
The only FACT provable is that Lt. Baldwin no longer works for Kingston, after many years as a part time officer there, while full time in Atkinson. For the last 4 years or so Mr. Baldwin has averaged a couple of shift a month or so in Kingston, as we hear it, but no more.
Those are the facts and the basis for the original story. You can draw your own conclusions about the details.
So, the facts as I see it, you published a story, that could be considered libelous, based on a story an anonymous someone you know told you, confirmed by another anonymous someone who "heard" the story, with a statement from another anonymous someone that could infer what the previous two anonymous someones said was true.
Yep, that sounds like you were being really fair to the Lt. when you pulled the story. How about when you published it?
Real news people can have anonymous sources, but they have editors who make sure the sources are accurate. Who verifies your stories?
Maybe the story is true. But, you have provided nothing but hearsay that in no way substantiates any of this story. Based on that, all you are doing is spreading a rumor, a very harmful one at that.
How is anyone expected to believe anything you say, except when you repost LT articles? And, lets not get into the tower story, which you got completely wrong.
Some bunch of "source's you have there bud.
I wish you would pursue the drinking habits of certain selectman candidates with such vigor present us with the "facts", and then leave it up to the readers to draw their own conclusions on that matter as well (remember how quickly that was yanked?).
If you had any integrity at all, you would have deleted this entire topic until you really had something to go with. This blog has reached a new low....and talk about a double standard!!!
And how was the "tower story" completely wrong?
Bennet DID call the head of tech committee. He did say he wanted them to look into tower issue. He did say he though baldwin should be added to committee.
This all happened. Tech committee didn't like being USED as a political tool, and now we have a new option to consider. That doesn't make original story wrong.
but facts aren't what you are debating, you are trying to shoot the messenger, sort of like our police chief does with his critics.
Quote directly from the Moderators entries:
"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!"
WRONG - Mr. Bennett wanted a technical person heading the committee, not the Lt.
"Or having the technology committee look into it, preferable with Lt. Baldwins direction and guidance!"
WRONG - It was never suggested the Lt. be added to the Technology Committee
"Yes, folks it is true. The reporter has heard form a number of citizens and officials in town that Phil is quietly trying to resurrect the tower issue."
WRONG - Mr. Bennett started the new effort.
"Well, it appears that our new selectman, Bill Bennet has been quietly pressuring the new "technology" committee to look into the "communications problem" in town. AND he wants BILL BALDWIN PUT ON THAT COMMITTEE! No conflict there, right?"
WRONG - No pressure was put on the Technology Committee and the LT's name never entered picture. Mr. Bennett wanted the Technology Committee involved because they are "Technical People"
"Could Mr. Bennett's insistance on Baldwin's participation on this committee, have to do with his totally partisan viewpoint that Atkinson's "communications crisis" can only be solved with a 180' phallic symbol in the center of town?"
WRONG - Mr. Bennett wants technical people solving the problem, and no, he does not want a tower in the center of town. Also, one small detail. The Comm Committee was only formed last week. Members who want to participate need to apply, with a resume. I don't believe that automatically makes the Lt. a member, do you?
So, some small facets of the Moderators entries were true, but as a whole, he got it entirely wrong. Rubbish you say! Go back and watch the last Monday's BOS meeting. Deny, debate all you want. The meeting video speaks for itself.
And where do you get this "Tech committee didn't like being USED as a political tool" crap. Did someone on the Tech committee say that? When, where? Or is this what you "think" the tech committee felt? I sure did not get that impression from watching the BOS meeting. Rather, I believe the head of the Technology Committee was asking for the job. It was Bill Friel who did not want them to take it on.
How is a Selectman who wants to solve a real problem, that has been handled very badly in the past, and wanting to take a different approach, turn into him making committees "Political Tools"? I don't see anything political here. I see a Selectman doing the job he was hired to do. You make it sound like he's doing an evil thing.
I don't need to shoot the messenger. He's doing a just dandy job of doing it to himself. The fact that he may get some small detail right sometimes is far overshadowed with all that he has got wrong or cannot prove.
From: "Bill Bennett" (Bill_Bennett@bennett-group.com)
To: "Fred Childs c/o B. Snicer" (bsnicer@atkinson-nh.gov); "Bill Friel" (bill@atkinsonbos.com); "Barbara Snicer" (bsnicer@atkinson-nh.gov)
Cc: "Todd Barbera, Technology Committee" (todd_barbera@myfairpoint.net)
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 12:29 AM
Subject: Emergency communications issues
> Hi,
>
> I've talked to Todd Barbera, and he thinks it would be better to assign > the emergency communications problem to the Technology Committee rather > than create a new ad hoc committee. If that's OK with you guys, can we > put "emergency communications" on the agenda for Monday night (5/11) and > have a motion to ask the Technology Committee to investigate possible > solutions to town-wide emergency communications problems?
>
> If we do that, we may want to appoint Bill Baldwin to the Tech Comm, or, > if he would prefer, appoint him as a special consultant to the Tech Comm.
>
> Bill B.
>
Only four people addressed to so the email trail infers that one of those four posted it. Or you could say five because Barbara was in the loop.
Was it Bill? Bill? Todd? Fred c/o Barbara? Barbara?
Or maybe its a completely ficticious posting? Does anyone think the above people are stupid enough to post one of their emails on a blog and not be called on it? I strongly doubt anyone is so dumb to do something like this. While its hard to tell whether its real or fake, does anyone really care? Personally, I don't buy it because its too easy to create something that looks like an email. Anyone could make it up. How gullible can people be? If it had ended with "send me your credit card number and for $19.99, we'll send you the rest of the emails" then I would've believed it.
The one thing we do know is what occurred on TV during the BOS meeting. The rest of the diatribe on the blog is theory, speculation, spin and/or BS.
The funny thing about email is that it can get forwarded over and over. The selectmen are meeting via email, so it's a public document.
Doesn't matter what the letter says, real or false. The committee will be what the BOS defined at the BOS meeting: Four Atkinson residents with technical backgrounds, and a member from the PD, FD, and Highway departments. I think we can assume the PD rep will be the LT. Further discussion to this aspect of the matter is useless because what is, is what is.
Hmmm...I wonder if this topic proves to be untrue, if Lt. Baldwin could find out the identity of the moderator and sue him and his team member for $3,000,000?
It is totally irresponsible for the moderator to present us with unsubstantiated facts and leave it to us to draw our own conclusions. Then again, it shows that this blog has never been about true dialogue in town. It is run by hard core, right wing CNHT-types who thrive on character assassinations and lawsuits.
May 26, 2009 9:44 AM, May 26, 2009 10:14 AM, and May 27, 2009 8:13 AM all have it exactly right. Whether we are talking about the most beloved person in town, or the most hated, the person the subject is directed at does not matter. What the moderator has done with this story is indeed the very definition of character assassination.
This is not a blog of the people, but a blog of people with an agenda and don't really care how they obtain it. They certainly are not going let the facts get in the way. They expect us to take their hysterical rants and unsubstantiated stories as true and then expect us to rally around them. They think we're stupid.
I think Atkinson-Reporter's last post, and the one that follows pretty much sums up what this blog has become. "You can draw your own conclusions about the details."
I've made a copy of those two posts in the event Atkinson-Reporter finally does the right thing and deletes this whole subject. If this happens again, I will post it as a reminder.
It is run by hard core, right wing CNHT-types who thrive on character assassinations and lawsuits.
Why do they have to be "right wing type"?
No body has engaged in character assassination in public more than our police chief.
does that describe him too?
And what should Lt. Baldwin do if the story is true?
"No body has engaged in character assassination in public more than our police chief."
So that makes OK then.
This is about integrity. Until the story can be proved, that is all it is, just a story.
Without proof, this story is slander.
Anon 1:50 said: And what should Lt. Baldwin do if the story is true?
That is a mighty big IF, isn't it? It's too bad that the rumor is out there and we have "what if's" now. Of course the moderator seems to have no issue with this.
Well, integrity is not one of the Moderator's character traits. Seem's he would prefer to keep this rumor running rather than do the right thing.
This place has become a gossip rag.
Even the press, though revered by some on this site, are not always correct.
This is a blog, where opinion and rumor run wild.
To Henry, if you want facts, where can you go? The library, filled with historical spin? nope. The court, filled with legal opinion? nope. The blog? Filled with rumors that may cause you to gasp? Maybe.
If you want facts, where can you go? Science ? Hardly. Religion? Hardly. Politics? Never.
Sift thru the BS Henry and question everything, be openminded.
Henry, again is spot on. One anonymous person claiming something happened because he heard it directly from another anonymous person in the know, and confirmed (and I use the term very loosely here) by two others who "heard about it".
Then the moderator has the gull to suggest we "draw our own conclusions."
One poster suggested the evidence presented would never make it past a judge. Then some clown says we're not in court, are we. Well, indeed we are, the court of public opinion. This member of the public finds the moderator's actions despicable.
This blog will never gain the level of credibility its predecessor enjoyed if the moderator does not clean up his act.
I think it is a riot that we listen to Phil tell us that all of his critics have vendettas against him, and we semi believe it, at least enough to crucify those who stand against him, but when the subject of the opinion is the Lt. it is wrong to even mention it without courtroom solid proof.
"it is wrong to even mention it without courtroom solid proof."
Me thinks you intentionally miss the point. Courtroom proof is not required. ANY proof might suffice. All we've heard so far is a lot of statements from Anonymous, none of which has been backed up with anything that could be considered a fact.
Anonymous's continued claim it is true, with absolutely nothing to back that claim, makes it nothing but a rumor.
Give us one fact that can be independently verified.
Post a Comment