Gilligan, why ruin good propaganda?
 

Gilligan,

What are you doing? Pointing out the fallacies of speed limit proponents might ruin their credibility. The general non-boating public might recognize that these pro speed limit arguments are designed to illicit fear and portray the lake as a scary and unsafe place. They make it sound like it was only fit for dare-devils and did not have a nice family friendly atmosphere. They want the public to believe that the 45-25 mph speed limit has made the lake safe and civil as if it was not like that before the 2 year speed limit experiment.

If you and some of the other irrational thinkers (as some call opponents of the 25 - 45 limit) keep questioning their illogical premises it might sink in to those who are unfamiliar with boating just what kind of scare tactics the pro speed limit crowd is using to elicit their support and appeal to their sensibilities.

Why do you want to ruin their pro-speed limit fantasies? They will out talk you and keep making the same false allegations of a wild lake over and over again until the public gives up and accepts their rhetoric without regard to reality and the truth. :(

I didn't know the lake was unsafe and uncivil until I started reading what the pro-speed limit minority had to say :laugh:. And to think I exposed my wife and children to this lake and enjoyed it without absolute speed limits all these years.

disclaimer: I have no connection with the boating or tourist industry and I do not have a boat capable of speeds over 40 mph and I DO NOT support the 45 - 25 mph speed limit.

P.S. Thanks Gilligan

Amazing what one accident caused by an intoxicated boater can do isn't it? A televised debate would be a very, very welcome situation. Once you got past the lies and innuendo, what would be left is crickets chirping.

Some of us tried in earnest to have real discussions, not debates, about safety. The SL supporters wanted nothing to do with any of that. For many life long boaters, safety and enjoyment is what it's all about. The SL supporters have shown they are only interested in their own interests. We have APS, that once said it was great to have motorists blocking the left lane on highways in what he called "rolling roadblocks" or some such thing.

I understand extreme noise and chaos is not popular, I don't like it either and would stop it. Try to engage in rational discussion with these folks and it becomes readily apparent that they don't share your thoughts at all. They want one or more groups of boaters off the lake, pretty much Period.

Lost that bet.... :D not worth it anymore anyway.

Poor boy. That challenge must have been so painful for you to resist. You must have thought "how long do I need to wait to respond without looking like a nerd?". I notice you were "thankyouing" the other posters right off the bat. Are you ever not logged into these threads?
Now try to get outside for a bit today so Mom can pick up your room.

didn't you say your good byes? Obviously you are trying to make things personal and I am not taking the bait.

This is why these threads get a bad name and I am not bringing them down as you have shown all along to be your intention.

Have fun on the water.... See you out there.


Farve is playing tonight.. :D

Elchase is now officially a TROLL after this uncalled for post.Why do you stoop so low?You've lost what little credibility you had now.

I thought Brett Farve retired?

Then he came back....
Then he retired again
Then he came back....

Now he is saying this is not about revenge????:confused:

Looks like revenge to me.

Hey...aren't we getting all getting a little touchy here about El's last post? Seems as if we've seen more than a couple posts "razzing" him , comments like the the one about him chasing felons, etc., etc., etc. Why all of a sudden this new higher standard for posting? Is it because he's one of the few SL supporters left on the forum who hasn't been badgered into oblivion? There's a few of you who can sure dish it out, but when it comes to taking it in return, well....

Sunset... Come on... I have been one of your biggest supporters. We have agreed to disagree on the SL issue and have kept things very cordial in many situations that could have been easily taken the wrong way...

There are many SL supporters that have been on here since day one and still are. They, like yourself, have been involved in some very heated discussions but it never got to the point of any personal attacks. And if it was construed that way it was immediately followed up with an apology.

El has in 68 posts driven his own reputation down. And no one has forced him to do so or to continue to stir the pot.

You have been one of the leading SL supporter and contributer to your cause. Although I don't agree with your views you do put them out there in a very dignified manner and again I applaud you for those actions. Don't get dragged along for the ride leading to no good.

I wish Mr. Weeks and his cronies would just admit, their real agenda is to:

Eliminate Performance Boats from Winnipesaukee

If they truly cared about Safety a Safe Passage Law is all that is needed. If a performance boat or any vessel is traveling at an unsafe speed for the conditions then the MP have the ability to cite someone.

In any event I have news for Mr. Weeks and his cronies...

Performance Boats and their captains are not going anywhere...this is our lake too :patriot:


In case people forget..performance boats have been a part of Winni since the early days...

http://www.vintageraceboatshop.com/R...story-1926.htm

I couldn't agree more.

It is clear and has even been stated by some SL supporters that they do not have an actual problem with speed but with other issues such as noise.

They are using this as a front to move their agenda. It is only matter of time before they start on limits on Horsepower, then "size" of the boat all together. This way to target not only performance boats but cruisers as well.

A shame to say the least.

CHAPTER 270-D, “BOATING AND WATER SAFETY ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PUBLIC WATERS” http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/...-D/270-D-2.htm already has a section (Section 270-D:2 X a) that talks about "Safe Passage".
To me that is good enough and they can remove sub paragraphs b, c, and d of that section.

Section 270-D:2
X. (a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore.
(b) Where no hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subparagraph (a), the speed of any vessel in excess of the limit specified in this subparagraph shall be prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable or prudent and that it is unlawful:
(1) 25 miles per hour during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise; and
(2) 45 miles per hour at any other time.
(c) The speed limitations set forth in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to vessels when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the peace officers in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with, or suspected of, any such violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vessels, nor to private emergency vessels when traveling to emergencies. This exemption shall not, however, protect the operator of any such vessel from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others.
(d) The speed limitations set forth in subparagraph (b) shall not apply to boat racing permitted under RSA 270:27.

It should be noted that El Chase scoffed at the Safe Passage rule. I believe that was the same time Codeman's boat problem story was being scoffed at as well.

This is fine

"Section 270-D:2
X. (a) No person shall operate a vessel on Lake Winnipesaukee at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and without regard for the actual and potential hazards then existing. In all cases, speed shall be controlled so that the operator will be able to avoid endangering or colliding with any person, vessel, object, or shore. "

True, I'm not going anywhere; as far as I'm concerned, this lake is still the best place to go boating, speed limits or no speed limits. I'll apologize now to anyone who is disturbed by the noise of my boat but remember, my Baja is legal.

Of course, if they're just disturbed, that's they're problem! :laugh: :laugh:

Sam, I agree; the first paragraph is all that's needed for the Marine Patrol. I wonder, if the MP could speak their mind publicly, what their position would be?

I wonder
 

if anyone's read through the buildup of this issue from way back in 2002. You would think that with all the media articles written since then, that the Littlefield accident would have left some fresh memories for people. Perhaps not, since the vast majority of facts from that case are never spoken about, yet it continues to be the fuel for the fire even now.

Facts that are not spoken of.

1) Littlefield was seen by many witnesses at The Meredith Town Docks
He was seen dancing around, by himself, eyes closed.

2) Littlefield was seen at the docks in his boat, fumbling around before leaving.

3) Several witnesses testified at trial that Littlefield had slurred his speech, and was visibly impaired.

4) There were even questions about the victim's stern light, something he had sought to replace according to a marina employee.

5) Littlefield was not convicted of BUI, since he was AWOL for about 48 hours, rendering a blood test useless.

6) The bar that Littlefield was drunk dancing in, and left from, that fateful night, has a direct link to That organization that promotes the SL passage.

7) Littlefield's insurance company disallowed the claims, because "The company said its coverage is barred, however, because it excludes criminal acts. The policy excludes coverage for "any loss, damage or liability willfully, intentionally or criminally caused or incurred by an insured person.''"