Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Adam Goes Postal...

...Stabs fellow selectmen in the back, beats up townies, takes cover behind CFO'ers.

Just one question Adam. Which of your faces was it that Mimi wanted to rip off?

Saturday, September 13, 2008

Submitted by Anonymous Re: a Kinder, Gentler form of Bondage

Note: This entry has been posted by Gladys Kravitz by way of an anonymous comment made to this blog. The comment read:

I submited comments on the coffee talk shop site with my name that were not published.

When Mrs. Bond posted the lastest 'let's all get allong' I couldn't stand it after all she has done to divide the town she hates and foster hate.

After all their time of targeting people who didn't agree with them, sudenly they have seen the light and they're on the defensive with their supporters?

On the last program Tom Calter was on and outclassed both Bonds. It made the Bonds sound provincial because they don't understand the issues. I wish you would write about it because we need to discuss this.

September 13, 2008 7:16 PM

Friday, August 8, 2008

Crocodile Tears Of A Clown

Congratulations! You have now entered the circus and here is the clown. The latest addition of Coffee Talk has brought in a leader of flying monkeys, Bill Marzelli to speak candidly about what he thinks of the Regional Task Force on Casino Impacts and its chairman, Nancy Yeatts. The exchange is telling. To avoid the entire low rated gabfest go right to this specific conversation by clicking here. After the main body of conversation which had lies, untruths and gross exaggerations. Bozo decides to make devil's advocate light and states the following when asked if he was on Billy's side after his gross assumptions that Ms. Yeatts a dictator:

"I am, (laughter in the background) I might have phrased it a little differently. (More laughter)"

This coming from a man who only a few months ago was so bored at not being chairman of the BOS he would rest with is feet stretched out, chair leaning back, palm in cheek to rest his head and wait for his cell phone to ring just so he can answer it during a BOS meeting. He loves being chairman now. Like a pig in slop. But he can't even get his Bingo Resort Advisory Committee to get a quorum either.

How would you phrase it, Bozo? Like you have in the past with slick legalese or start comparing Ms. Yeatts as some jack booted brown shirt with a little mustache. He won't dare say it, cause he knows he'll get in trouble. His foot is always inches away from his pie hole. But you know he thinks it.

Neither Bond nor Marzelli know what they are talking about when it comes to outside their circus ring called Middleboro. Pompous clowns.

Thank you Wally and Mikey for the wonderful photo. Larty, darty, clowns like to party :D

Saturday, May 3, 2008

How It's Said Matters Too

Well, Mr. Bond has posted two very interesting entries on Coffee Shop Talk today. I wish I could say that these were further evidence of a new era of openness and accountability and show consideration and restraint in one of our elected representatives, but I cannot.

The latest of these entries takes as its starting point a verbatim quote of a comment I made on the Nemakset forum a week ago; the other is an attack on a recent posting on Middleboro Review, presumably made to support an individual who is not a town resident, but whose actions have caused much damage and have done little to further rational discussion of the casino, its benefits, and impacts.

I’ll start with the most recent posting. First of all, shame on me for the comment I made on Nemasket Net. I am deeply sorry that I provided you with ammunition that you have chosen to use to again set people against one another and inflame passions. Shame on me also, for not considering that my comments could make it to the web at large, although it is a breach of netiquette to post material from a private forum on a publicly accessible webpage, as it is a breach of netiquette to publicly post private e-mail correspondence. However, I ask you, how does posting a comment from a members-only forum on your blog page, and then challenging readers to attack you for doing so, “heighten and further” discussion of issues important to the town?

Likewise, how does implicitly goading an individual who has engaged in abusive and destructive behavior on the internet into seeking a legal remedy against Middleboro Review further the cause of “cooperation between opponents and proponents” to ensure that we “work together to force the state to address the money issues within the region”? It seems to me the tactics you have engaged in today have the opposite effect of setting us against one another when we need to work together on hundreds of issues, beyond the casino. If my worst case is that the casino is coming and we must mitigate it; your worst case is that the casino is not coming and we must prepare for it. The postings on Coffee Shop Talk today will not help that process

You say

Engage someone personally on the internet. Blog about
them to the point of damaging their reputation and business,
and have that blog linked by several other sites at the
same time, then demand from the target of your blogging
something of value in order for you to stop the blogging and
take down the offensive material you posted in the first place?
Sound familiar? Sound like coercion?

You bet it does, it sounds exactly like the behavior the individual that you defend has engaged in all this past year, an individual whose business sponsors your radio program, and whose website is still a link on your blog page. Because that individual cannot see beyond the potential financial benefit (to his business) of the proposed casino, he feels compelled to attack, viciously and by any means at his disposal, any who disagree with him.

However, the number of those of us who disagree with him (and with you) that a casino is good for Middleboro or for the region, or that the tribal government of the Mashpee Wampanoags can be trusted to act openly and in good faith with the Town of Middleboro when they do not do so with their own members--their continued shunning of a respected elder despite an overwhelming majority vote of the members of the tribe to reinstate that elder is evidence to me that they are not to be trusted to deal openly and fairly with us--is numerous, and is growing all the time.

As to the matter of links, I link to your blog on my page, and I am not planning on taking that link down at any time in the future. I like to pay attention to what is being said on the opposite side of the issue, I find it makes for more interesting and profitable discussions. It is a shame that you (apparently) do not feel the same.

Coffee Pot Calls the Kettle Black

Well, "He who shall not be named" is at it again. Not that he is not posting comments on his "copyrighted" blog, but it is now getting to the point where even acknowledgement of his "intellectual property" will only inflate an already blimp sized ego. He has decided to remove links on his sight that He feels are promoting "questionable content." Of course, He mentions CasinoFacts specifically. Why mention any others since his intent has always been to malign anyone who does not agree with him. CasinoFacts is not a blog, but does itself link to entertaining and fact based blogs. Blogging is an art that empowers the individual to promote their talent that would not be noticed otherwise and get information out that would hopefully meet a need somewhere else. Some bloggers obviously lack both talent & useful information.
He has decided to remove CasinoFacts for linking to a link that links to comments that He finds "questionable" but leaves links to Middleboro Casino whose author likes to take what should be personal conversations and private persons (contributors to this blog and others) and display them in the public domain on the front page mostly to promote his victim hood. Then there is Casino-Friend whose psychotherapist author without "calling people racists" call people... you guessed it, racists. In fact both "He" and one "Death Eater" have taken my private e-mails to them and posted them on their sites. Not that I would at any point converse in an inappropriate manner or use the obscenities that one has to me, but gosh darn it, they were private e-mails. It just lacks courtesy to do that for self promotion.
Coffe Shop Talk continues to be Not.

Saturday, March 1, 2008

Copyright Coward

It appears that Mr. Coffee Talk doesn't want anyone actually quoting his comments from his blog without permission. He has put a copyright disclaimer at the bottom of is posts. Personally, his blog isn't worth quoting to begin with. He is much more quotable in person. Saying stupid things like, "Let's freeze Ruth's brain." and "I don't care where the trash goes as long as it leaves Middleborough."
He being a lawyer I think somehow makes him feel protected or that his words are actually of some worth. It isn't like it is any real intellectual property. He ain't being paid to say this stuff... or is he? But, that is another story. Copyrights are for those who have a financial interest through their work and don't want others to financial benefit from it. Copyrighting your blog is just a coward's way of trying to intimidate those who will actually repeat your words to make counter points. Mr. Coffee Talk wants control. Sorry, I don't drink coffee. I'm for coffee-not.
For some excellent understanding of what it fair use under copyright laws, try here. I intend to use Mr. Coffee Talk as fairly as posible.

Monday, February 25, 2008

Fault me as you choose.....

Some of us have sat back and listened to offensive quotes emanating from Selectman Adam Bond for almost a year.
Remember when he called the opposition braying mules?
I encountered Mr. Bond the day that quote was FIRST published in the Boston Globe.
Although I hadn't yet read the article or quote, apparently Mr. Bond had received so much criticism, that he offered an excuse immediately.
At that time, his excuse was that he had been misquoted by the reporter - his comment was taken out of context.
Of course, I went home and called the reporter. During the conversation, she assured me that she had not taken the comment out of context.
Several days later, Mr. Bond repeated the same comment.
It was curious to consider Mr. Bond's excuse when several months later, he not only took my comments out of context, but deliberately edited the comments to alter their meaning.
At the TMFH, Mr. Bond described voters as stupid.
In August, Mr. Bond excused a convicted rapist and serial liar by saying that we all have skeletons in our closet.
There are numerous other examples of Mr. Bond's unthinking comments creating offense.
Clearly, the most recent racism and Holocaust comments were inexcusable.
Fault me as you choose, but the Holocaust comments will remain on my blog.
It should not have been posted.
It remained for 2 days until I posted the link to the radio station.

Middleboro Review

Land of the Lost

From Anonymous:

I am not much for blogging, but I did comment on several of adam's posts, not one of my comments were posted. I will remember to save and post them here.

I asked several questions about sovereign land, adam mentions sovereignty and the fact that you cannot sue the tribe unless they allow you to sue.

The fact that the tribal council has not shown openess or fair dealings in the past;

*The Tribal council will not reinstate several members who were shunned for asking too many questions even though the tribal membership voted to reinstate them. A law unto themselves.

*The tribal council will not release the details of their deal with the foreign investors to tribal members even though they have been repeatedly requested.

*That the tribe will not release any plans to the public about what they intend to build, not even conceptual designs or proposals.

*That lotteries were used mainly in the past to raise money for the good of the common citizens before most taxes {ie, the income tax) were ever instated.

If we cannot trust the leadership how can we trust that the tribe is working in the best interests of the community.

I questioned him about his repeated insuinations that anti-casino people are all racist. His use of "string them up" and the statement that anti-casinos people are taking up where the Nazi's left off.

I see he has since removed these blogs, and all comments to them (So much for open conversation). adam should have written an apology or retraction as a post script and take what is coming to him like a man(sorry I thought adam was a man's name)? maybe I will have to start calling his show to get answers or will he even take callers? We need answers to questions that no one is answering. Adam is an elected official and should be answerable to his statements, instead he makes them dissappear in a puff of smoke "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain".


Two of Adam's posts have disappeared.

Of course they were the ones with the most comments. In their place are two new blogs, one having to do with jobs, to which there is no hope of getting a truthful comment posted unless you are Dan Kennedy, and another which is basically a block of legal text that nearly sent me into a coma after the fourth line. I did comment on this post, however, offering some helpful advice to Adam about not boring the bejesus out of people and all that, but we all know that's never going to show up.

At the top on the blog this evening is a new posting. It's Adam's explanation for taking down the blog postings about Nazis and racisim, which needless to say doesn't mention Nazis or racisim, nor have anything to do with anything besides his own selfless desire to ratchet down the tone of this discussion, and which, of course was not complete without a mild dig towards yours truly.

Anyway, good for Adam. I hope Bumpkin keeps his postings up. Especially the picture. One mega casino: A bazillion dollars. One year's casino agreement: 9 Million dollars. One picture of Bumpkin with a peice of duct tape under his nose: Priceless.

Anyway, I scrolled down the blog and found NO MORE comments. Anywhere. On any posting!

But wait! There's one! I click it, knowing that it's my simple,

"Adam Darling, why aren't you posting my comments?? Gladys "

But instead I find only these empty lines:

Comment Deleted
This comment has been deleted by the blog administrator


Last Words

Because it's more important that we return to a discussion of the issues, both of Middleboro and the factual impacts of the non-existent casino, these are among my last words regarding Mr. Bond's sordid attacks.
For the last day, I have spoken with others who were DEEPLY OFFENDED and outraged over Mr. Bond's comments equating the casino with the HOLOCAUST.
The reaction of many to the inappropriate parallels drawn by Mr. Bond have left many without words, as much as myself.
Mr. Bond's parallel was curious.
When discussing Sovereign Rights, perhaps we could draw parallels with the US presence on the island of Cuba.
Those are US Sovereign Rights imposed on the Sovereign Nation of Cuba.
That presence is Guantanamo Bay. It is called GITMO.
It is a place where International Law and Constitutional Rights have been suspended.
It is a place where the Red Cross has been denied access as provided in previous US Agreements.
It is a place where innocent people were brutally tortured and then released when it was determined that they were, in fact, innocent.
It is a place where a 15 year old is still being held after years in 'captivity,' like an animal.
It is a place where NO TRIALS ARE HELD.
The US also has other territories on which they proclaim Sovereign Rights to torture.
Or perhaps, the modern parallel to the racist accusation raised by Mr. Bond might be the current US treatment of Muslims.
We stalk them, eavesdrop on their phone conversations, and target them because we believe THEY are ALL terrorists.
Because Muslims wear different clothing, pray during the day and adhere to different beliefs, they must be terrorists. Right?
Shall we draw parallels?
Do we believe Native Americans to be terrorists?
The US has invaded 2 Muslim countries: one to provide security for a pipeline to Pakistan and the other because of oil.
Why should Native Americans be permitted to have Sovereign Rights within the US if they wear different clothing and have different beliefs? Shouldn't they also conform?
Clearly, there are numerous other parallels to be drawn should one care to, but let's stick to the facts.
Since Mr. Bond clearly lacks any historical sense, we should stick to the current issues.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Boy Meets Blogger, Boy Disses Blogger, Boy Gets Blogged

In Response to Adam's Post:
Bellicose Bumpkin Unique Theory of Sovereign Liability

Dated 2/22/08

Dilemma: I make a comment on the above post, Adam doesn't publish it, then proceeds to comment on my comment that he didn't publish.

My first (unpublished) comment:

You write :“because there is no sympathy for a casino."

Actually you and some others I've met over the summer appear to have a depthless amount of sympathy, not to mention love, understanding and compassion, for casinos.

Next, there are differences between tribal courts and state courts or federal courts. Namely, if a case goes before a judge in our state (say in the matter of wrongful death), the case is put before a jury of one's peers. But in tribal court, where are one's peers? Where does one find peers in the microcosm of the sovereign casino world if one is not part of it.

BTW are you going to write any of your own blogs or just comment on those of others? Oh that's right - you have to support and defend - Section 22, Parts B, C and D.

Well, keep reachin' for that rainbow,

After a few others comment on this post, Adam adds his own comment:

Gladys wrote several unflattering things (who would have
guessed it), but the one statement that actually even called out for addressing is the following”

“… there are differences between tribal courts and state or federal courts. Namely, if a case goes before a judge in our state (say in the matter of wrongful death), the case is put before a jury of one's peers. But in tribal court, where are one's peers? Where does one find peers in the microcosm of the sovereign casino world if one is not part of it?

Gladys needs to realize that the world continues to be a diverse place of individuals from, and living in worlds that she is not a part of—and they continue to have the right to exist. Take the first example of Louisiana. Bring a case there Gladys. Do you think that all law in the United States is the same…wrong!

For example—unlike that of any other state—Louisiana law derives from the Civil Code established by the French emperor in 1804. The resulting system of "civil law" in the state differs from the other 49 states' "common-law" traditions, meaning that the rulings in the French-influenced system come from direct interpretation of the law; rulings in the common-law system give greater authority to legal precedent.
If I am litigating in New York as a Massachusetts citizen, is the jury my “peers”? In Mississippi? In Puerto Rico?

So I guess differences in court systems and laws is not a basis to complain, since we have that already. Guess we can’t really complain that a jury is not our peers, since that happens every time you go to a different State, or country (if they have juries). I also assume that Indians are considered our peers, since last I looked, they were allowed to serve on juries in this Country.

So maybe I just don’t understand your point, or you are making one that I really hope is not your point.

Ok, so here I am... dissed on a comment without that comment even being fully published! Needless to say, I come to my own defense:
Ah oui, Adam! Gladys is tres familiar with le difference between la code Napoleon and English common law. There was a time when I had applied to Tulane and wanted to better understand the place where I could be living.

Anyway, my other comments were hardly unflattering. They were just truthful. BTW, don't you think you should actually LINK to my blog if you are going to blog about it????????

Well, back to the blog, I had anticipated this line of rebuttal from you. I'm not sure why you think I don't understand diversity. What is your basis for this claim other than the fact that I would not want to be tried in a sovereign Indian nation court?

I would also not like to be tried in military court, or a court in a hostile country.


Because in any State or Federal court, it's still America. It IS diverse. The deck is not already stacked against me (excuse the pun.) If the land in Middleboro became casino country, virtually the Tribe's entire economy would be based on a casino owned and operated on sovereign soil. Claims against the casino could and in all likelihood would be seen as threats against the family business. This is why I used the word 'microcosm.' Can an outsider really have a fair shot at a fair trial in this environment of, by, and for the casino? It feels more like a corporation and less like a democracy. I think the channel five video bears this out.

But go ahead, I know you'll disagree with me and probably only print the parts of my comments that you wish to distort.

BTW, great job keeping up with section 22 D, seriously.


After the second comment didn't make it past the censors I sent another comment:
Adam Darling, why aren't you posting my comments?? Gladys
That - he published!

Adam Hearts Gladys

In response to Adam's post:
Our Founding Father's Used Gambling As a Revenue Source

Dated: 2/22/08

Dilemma: Adam blogs about my blog, doesn't link to it, then doesn't post my comment.

Comment went something like this (I had yet to realize that I needed to save my comments when dealing with Adam):

And the lottery is a casino, Adam?

I'm concerned you don't understand the

BTW in the graphic you use on this post I'm not sure
there are any actual founding fathers. I only mention this
because the latest date you use in your post is 1790.