OK, I'll give you this...the Sunset family was brought to tears from laughter. Move the rocks at the Barber's Pole so some of you guys would not need to throttle down? Talk about the tail wagging the dog!!:emb::emb::emb:

If it would increase safety at that particular location, what exactly is so funny about it? It would widen the zone, making it possible for 2 boats to pass on plane (oh the horror!). Why go on and off plane, creating massive waves in the process, when you don't have to?

Yeah let's talk about the tail wagging the dog. A small minority of people who push for a NWZ that affects everyone. Then when asked to quantify the reasons why the answers given are either embellishments beyond belief or just plain fictitious.

The bold above is mine. The other night I typed up a response to a post and strongly suggested that POWER over others was the Real Issue....in the SL case and the NWZ.........and every other wacko law that "some" people ..come up with for the lake.

I deleted my post....then. Now I see I'm not alone in my thoughts. Thanks MAXUM. :look: NB

Where's your videotape from your journey over there?

Have a Hurricane or 2 for me!


Woodsy

What a bottom feeder
 

This is really pathetic and a very low blow. And I suppose none of you and your Winn-Fabs ilk ever touch a drop of alcohol? How many times a day do you people polish your halos? Your self-professed "stronghold" on the lake is about to change direction - swiftly and radically. Just stay tuned and you'll see what I mean. Until then, keep guessing.

Somehow I find that hard to believe especially given the strong bipartisan support in both houses for the SL (hence so what if more Republicans get elected...this was shown to be a reasonably non-partisan issue...in fact the bill was put forth by a Republican). Polls showed most NH residents are in a favor of a SL, and the fact that people approached to sign petitions were well versed and aware of some of Winni's problems and signed in a 10:1 majority was important.
So...I wasn't "guessing" to begin with. Now if you'll excuse me I have a bit of work to do before cocktail hour begins.
You sound like a very angry person.

Congratulations!
 

Thank you for noticing. You get an A+ on your test.

SP

Not Me...
 

I'd made no promises.

MARK YOUR CALENDARS !!!!

Today's Meredith News reports that there will be a new hearing on the Barber Pole NWZ on October 1, at 10:00 A.M. at the Tuftonboro Meeting House.

According to the article, the original petionners (you know who you are) failed to notify all the property owners and the public. As aresult, 39 people petioned the Dept. of Safety for a new hearing.

Let's all show up in force for this one. Should buses be chartered to bring in all the people who missed the original "hearing" ?

Having reviewed some of the documents relating to this NWZ I find it interesting that 3 or 4 "prominent" SBONH members are appellants. What does this say? In reading some of the letters sent to the DOS from the island people it's easy to see they are indeed the one's most affected. Clearly it is a bad situation. Then here comes the SBONH crowd challenging their assertions. And then the origin of SBONH last December with the mission to oppose the SL...well it seems rather transparent what their opposition to a NWZ is all about. I suspect their appearance in droves will make this clear to those who will be entrusted to make the proper ruling. There was a sense that the appearance of the GFBL crowd in Concord did more to help pass the SL than to defeat it. History does tend to repeat itself.

Hearing tonight
 

Tuftonboro is having a meeting tonight at 7:00 pm regarding the Barber pole nwz. Not sure where on the agenda it will fall.

Never Getting Those Hours Back...
 

A waste of three hours... :( ...not including travel.

In the last five minutes, the BP attorney summed it up:

Is this different than the hearing in Tuftonboro that was conducted by the Department of Safety earlier today? If so, I'd be interested in knowing what jurisdiction the Town has over this matter?

Barber Pole NWZ hearing was held this morning at 10:00 AM at Tuftonboro Meeting Hall. Anyone out there who attended care to share their thoughts?

The hearing was held today. The hearing was limited to the 11 individuals that submitted requests for re-hearing. The state will now decide whether or not to allow a full re-hearing, which will make the original hearing null and void and essentially set the process back to square one. If the state decides a re-hearing is necessary we will be notified and we will pass along the information to all. If th state decides a re-hearing is not warranted then the process continues to the state level through the house, senate, etc.

The hearing was fairly well attended.

I thought it was included in the regular town agenda. My mistake.

Has the Lake Changed?
 

1) I'd "audited" a similar NWZ hearing—in the same building—about ten years ago: No one "in opposition" to the NWZ had appeared at the previous hearing. (Attended by about 30 people). In spite of that turnout, it failed then, but something equivalent is in place near Tuftonboro Neck "Narrows"—today. :confused:

2) At the earlier hearing at the same location, I'd noticed no particular odor—this hearing was different. :eek2: Can anyone account for that odor? :confused:

It wasn't "the usual suspect" from Wolfeboro—who's expected to do a rumored eight years for transporting the stuff. :(

3) At dinner last evening, I encountered a friendly :) face—a diner from Massachusetts—with whom I've spoken at area restaurants. I'd seen her at the hearing, but didn't have an opportunity to re-introduce myself there.

After the hearing, she was speaking with an elderly gentleman—could that have been Hal C. Lyon, the author of local Bass-fishing lore?

This is turning into a much longer reply than I'd planned! :o

4) Anyway, it turns out this person lives at the northern reach of the Barber Pole NWZ, and their family is opposed to that NWZ—saying:

:confused:

Motion to re-open
 

GRANTED!

"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted."

The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.

Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do.

Basically this will cancel the petition outright.

Nice job SBONH
 

Wow. Nice to see that the SBONH group was able to change the outcome of this attempt buy a few to slip this No Wake Zone proposal through the system.

To me it seemed that SBONH did not take sides on the issue but rather challenged the process. I find that to be a very important distinction and applaud them and their efforts to see that a small vocal minority could not push their agenda through the system without allowing ALL in the area the opportunity to provide their input on the proposed NWZ.

This was NOT a Go Fast agenda but a DO IT the RIGHT WAY initiative. Regardless of the eventual outcome of the Barber Pole NWZ I admire the goal of SBONH.

Responsible legislation makes noting but good (and proper) sense.

Wonder how Turtle Boy, Sunset on the Dock, El Chase and their very few verbose and prolific posting cohorts will try to spin this success.

Bravo SBONH :patriot: and thank you.

Bring our lake back
 

I think its great that someone is finally stepping up and putting all these old fogies back in their place. All these efforts to slow everyone down are just driving tourists away from New Hampshire. Speed used to be king on Winni, now it is suddenly a bad word? That channel is plenty wide enough for boats to pass each other full throttle. I am a bass fisherman and we need to go through there all the time. If we have to slow down, it costs us money. We are working with our rep to have the speed limit repealed. He will be filing a bill right after the election. Stay tuned. Safe Boaters or Unsafe boaters, I don't care. I just want our lake back the way it was a couple of years ago when you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

:rolleye1: Nice try

Tough crowd.

New to forum BearIslandMoose's first posts.
 

Come on now BearIslandMoose. We're not a "tough crowd" but a wise crowd. Wise to you and your kind of trolling and propaganda.

In your very first post to the forum you said You are putting words in OCD's mouth. You are trying to stir the pot and trying to portray this procedural issue accomplishment into an unlimited speed and wild cowboy scare scenario.

The forum isn't buying your bull moose. If you are not Turtle Boy, SOTD, ElChase or APS in moose clothing then I believe they put you up to this. I quoted you and bolded some of your outrageous comments. You attempt to cast a black shadow over a SBONH success. You seem to want to inflame and distract from them and their accomplishment. Your attitude is deplorable. This thread is not about speed but about the process of legislation.

We are becoming keenly aware of the tactics of the pro speed limit group and some of their supporters. Those who are afraid of SBONH and wish to discredit them and their organization.

Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

No Surprise
 

Well now, isn’t that interesting; and to think that the illustrious and righteous El Chase told us on August 25, 2010 in post # 128 of this thread that:

“I hope this one last post can get through without editing. If it is, then I promise this will be the LAST time I ever try to opine on this site.”
“If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again.”

I would not be surprised to see the argument raised that (a) our webmaster is wrong; (b) someone hijacked EL Chase’s IP address; (c) someone else in the El Chase household is using the IP address; or, perhaps (d) that El Chase has abandoned his fellow travelers. This is better than a soap opera.

Don thank you so much. I really appreciate you sharing this information with the membership as it is truly your call to have done so.

"Just wait"...
 

Please leave me out of this: I have it especially easy in the finding of fradulent posts, polls and voting record of the "Unlimited Speeds for Winnipesaukee" crowd. :rolleye2:

Before anything with real meaning happens, SBONH will eventually discredit themselves—just as the NHRBA did. :rolleye1:

In the immortal words of Wednesday-Friday Addams,

You all have to ask why I returned? Come on. As long as you keep dropping my name, you can't complain when I chime back in occasionally. And my post was perfectly poetic. It says exactly what you all keep saying and shows how goofy the arguments are. I clearly could not have done that as myself. I'm actually surprised that half of you did not "Thank" me before you woke up.

And how is a post under a fake name any different than OCD using the embarrassing name "Safe Boaters" for your go-fast club? You guys are hypocrites. You put on a costume ("We are really only doing this to promote full disclosure of such petitions, it has nothing to do with any objection to being told to slow down. All we really care about is safety."), then challenge other people's righteousness? Give me a break. What a bunch of phonies.

You guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of Bourgeious' undeserved personal NWZ a few years back. Few of those fronting that petition were "local residents" then, and none of you seem concerned that your petition then got through without all this notification of the local residents. Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right? I didn't think so.

"Safe Boaters" is obviously nothing more than a group of go-fast cowboys whose sole mission is to get the SL repealed. They are biding their time with these obvious distractions (boating inspections, silly ITL bills, washing Barrett's car), but we all know what they are all about. Put the throttle down...make some Thunder.

Now stop recalling me and I'll stop posting, as promised. But every time you drop my name, whether expressly or through reference, I'll be back. You'll know its me because it will be a first time poster pointing out the idiocies of your agendas.

Bear Who ????
 

I respectfully suggest to the Webmaster that the IP address of this person be permanently blocked from further posting. At least other people who agree with him have the courage and moral character to continue to post under their member names, and for that I respect them.

I disagree, let him post and let him use whatever name he wants, he really can't hide his agenda.

We have to be open to people that disagree with us, we are not a bunch of Joy Baher's are we?

I Remember, when another poster kept changing his screen name, pretty soon no one took him seriously.

Bear Who ???
 

I certainly agree that this forum should generally be open to all and that debate is healthy. However, I think this poster has crossed the line and that was the reason for my suggestion. His words and actions have certainly served to undermine the credibility of whatever cause he is advocating.

In my book, El's comments are always welcome on this forum, under any name. No one has done more to expose the hypocrisy of certain members of the SL coalition. He has provided badly needed transparency to what is going on behind the scenes in many instances, often with surgical precision. Welcome back.
As far as the mission of some to repeal or amend the SL, I think most of our leaders in Concord are savvy enough to see what's really going on. A few fringe members of our legislature will be unable to change what most people on the lake have wanted for a very long time. The overwhelming support of the SL by the House, Senate, and letters and emails attests to this. I also hope that if a bill is put forth to exclude the Broads from the SL that there is an opposing bill put forth whereby the SL on the Broads would continue to be 45 MPH but on the rest of the lake it is substantially lower, say 35 MPH.JMO

winni83's post was not an attempt to "stir the pot", but my reply to it was? Your hypocrisy is matched only by your intellectual dishonesty. I assume that your instant conversion from a "thunder boater" to a "safe boater" must have resulted from a near death experience, and was not driven by some long term plan to reverse the SL?. Come on. :emb::emb:

Please spare me. I looked for "winni83" in the phone book, and can't find anyone by that name, so aren't you crossing the same line? In fact, I have apparently been the only one on this forum using his real name until now. Is OCD somebody's real name? Is Vitabean?
You guys sound like the press after they found out Christine O'Donnell had "dabbled in witchcraft" when she was fifteen years old. Get real. This is not testimony before a grand jury. This is an internet forum.

As I said, if you want me to stay away, stop taunting me by dropping my name out of the blue for no reason, like winni83 did. If you can't do that, then you get what you get and can't cry "foul" about it.

Wah, wah, wah.

Funny, I thought this thread was about the NWZ at the Barbers Pole.

Great news that the motion to re-open was granted. No surprise that the usual trolls come out of hiding as soon as news they don't like comes out.

I don't think Chip deserves all the credit for that.

:confused:
Say what? What exactly was I taking credit for? Other than being in agreement with some of the SBONH initiatives, I have no affiliation with them whatsoever.

elchase, why don't you take a closer look at what SBONH stands for. You might find yourself enlightened as to the organizations goals.

I suggest that there are a few more Screenames who are using that same IP Address....and one may suprise you. :D NB

Now there's an unbiased comment. Please, I just ate dinner.

Kind of like people who were against a SL despite polls, legislative bodies with bipartisan majorities for a SL, and a preponderance of emails showing people were fed up with the former status quo on the lake.

There were more than three but they were bullied and badgered off this site by this very vocal minority who has few other venues on which to congregate. Truthful to yourself?? Like SBONH is primarily about safety? That you are the majority? Come on. And you accuse others of stirring the pot.
While you may attempt to take ownership of this forum it is reassuring that your group can no longer do so on the lake by marginalizing others who wish to use this beatiful resource.