From the Concord Monitor, 9/8/2009

I see where a fellow named "John Weeks" made quite an impression around the Legislative Office Building yesterday. Anyone know any details of his dealings there? Why has he been asked to speak to several committee chairpersons? About what?

3, 2, 1,...

[Kracken]

From Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1troll
Pronunciation: \ˈtrōl\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, probably from Anglo-French *troiller, *troller; akin to Anglo-French troil, trolle winch
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 : to cause to move round and round : roll
2 a : to sing the parts of (as a round or catch) in succession b : to sing loudly c : to celebrate in song
3 a : to fish for by trolling b : to fish by trolling in c : to pull through the water in trolling d : to search in or at ; also : prowl
intransitive verb
1 : to move around : ramble
2 a : to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat b : search, look ; also : prowl
3 : to sing or play in a jovial manner
4 : to speak rapidly

—noun
1 : elchase

[OCDACTIVE]

how many times this revolving door going to come around?

Farve did well last night!

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Kracken

From Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1troll
Pronunciation: \ˈtrōl\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, probably from Anglo-French *troiller, *troller; akin to Anglo-French troil, trolle winch
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 : to cause to move round and round : roll
2 a : to sing the parts of (as a round or catch) in succession b : to sing loudly c : to celebrate in song
3 a : to fish for by trolling b : to fish by trolling in c : to pull through the water in trolling d : to search in or at ; also : prowl
intransitive verb
1 : to move around : ramble
2 a : to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat b : search, look ; also : prowl
3 : to sing or play in a jovial manner
4 : to speak rapidly

—noun
1 : elchase

-noun
2 : anyone else on this forum who could possibly question the GFBL ideology that speed limits are of no value and are "un-American".

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

-noun
2 : anyone else on this forum who could possibly question the GFBL ideology that speed limits are of no value and are "un-American".

I think you are going for a sarcastic or humorous remark. As stated in the past I have no issues with you, bear islander, even APS.. Some of the most powerful SL supporters on here who trumpet your cause very well.

Then there are those who don't.

But if it was meant to be a funny remark.. I did laugh..

[Kracken]

Is there a better synonym for American than freedom?

Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: frē-dom
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous d : ease, facility e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use
2 a : a political right b : franchise, privilege

synonyms freedom, liberty, license mean the power or condition of acting without compulsion. freedom has a broad range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being unduly hampered or frustrated . liberty suggests release from former restraint or compulsion . license implies freedom specially granted or conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom .

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Is there a better synonym for American than freedom?

Main Entry: free·dom
Pronunciation: frē-dom
Function: noun
Date: before 12th century
1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another : independence c : the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something onerous d : ease, facility e : the quality of being frank, open, or outspoken f : improper familiarity g : boldness of conception or execution h : unrestricted use
2 a : a political right b : franchise, privilege

synonyms freedom, liberty, license mean the power or condition of acting without compulsion. freedom has a broad range of application from total absence of restraint to merely a sense of not being unduly hampered or frustrated . liberty suggests release from former restraint or compulsion . license implies freedom specially granted or conceded and may connote an abuse of freedom .

1:h is the one that got my attention. Winnipesaukee wouldn't be the first of America's great and beautiful natural resources to be despoiled by unrestricted use.

[DEJ]

FYI, Lake Winnipesaukee has many restrictions on it's use, not unrestricted as you implied.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by DEJ

FYI, Lake Winnipesaukee has many restrictions on it's use, not unrestricted as you implied.

You are right there...and I am grateful for said restrictions. Unrestricted use (see above definition of freedom) of the lake would be a bad thing.

[NoRegrets]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

You are right there...and I am grateful for said restrictions. Unrestricted use (see above definition of freedom) of the lake would be a bad thing.

I agree that pumping raw sewage or dumping trash are good restrictions! I am not convinced the SL has any value based on all the collected data to date!!!!!!

[Resident 2B]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

-noun
2 : anyone else on this forum who could possibly question the GFBL ideology that speed limits are of no value and are "un-American".

Sunny,

I brought up "Un-American". However, you folks continue to twist the words.

It is not Un-American to have an opinion or a question. It is completely Un-American to deliberately mislead the public to gain a political advantage that has resulted in a law that restricts the use of a public resource by certain group of people.

It is Un-American in my opinion to use mis-truths and other misleading statements, that the pro-speed-limit folks have used and continue to use in this debate, that have given good people with little or no knowledge of the real situation the completely wrong view of what is the real situation on Lake Winnipesaukee.

For that, those using these tactics should be ashamed!

If any of the pro-SL minority actually cared about real safety on the lake, your efforts would be better spent supporting boater education and responsible boating by all. All you want to do is to restrict performance boats from the lake in this round, then it is on to restricting cruisers. You must think the rest of us are completely stupid not to see this.

R2B

[VtSteve]

This is how a proper committee hearing should proceed.


So Mr. Weeks, we have your letter in front of us, and we've been discussing it amongst ourselves. We notice that your comments about the lake this year, in regards to boating traffic and weather, contrast significantly from not only our own experiences this year, but from virtually everybody's. Where were you this summer that there was so much good boating weather?

Also, could you please elaborate on the multitude of boating accidents? Our committee knows about several tragic deaths that occurred early this season, but we weren't aware that this was the first summer without a High-Speed tragedy. In fact, looking through the records, we couldn't come up with a single high-speed tragedy on the lake. We are aware of two tragedies that occurred on the lake, and we have a representative from the Marine Patrol here today to review the case facts with us.

We assume you have a list to support your claims, can we see it please?
______________________________

This is how politics works sometimes

Hi Jack, how are you? Oh yeah, we know about timing, don't worry about that. We were thinking of burying something in with another law in January, when those gosh darn out of state boaters weren't looking.

Jack, don't worry about those idiots that keep taking about enforcement and safety, we have your back covered. Remember, we want those boats and others off the lake as well. These things take time, and have to be handled carefully. If people thought we passed laws to discriminate against people we don't like, all heck would break loose.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

I see where a fellow named "John Weeks" made quite an impression around the Legislative Office Building yesterday. Anyone know any details of his dealings there? Why has he been asked to speak to several committee chairpersons? About what?

3, 2, 1,...

Since you observed "John Weeks" around the legislative office building, what is your business????????

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

what is your business????????

Have patience. You'll see soon enough.

Speaking of Bret Favre, Did you guys see the way he played last night? I bet the Vikings are glad that the Packers were not able to convince him to retire. I heard he got so upset when they told him he was washed up that he decided to stick around a few more years. Now look at the way he throttled the very team that has dissed him. It was like watching a man versus a bunch of little boys. What sweet revenge that must have been.
Got to go. Underdog is on Nickelodeon in a bit. That theme song is so catchy. And his uniform is so cute.

PS: You guys all forgot to do "Thank You" on one of Kracken's posts above.

[Kracken]

Bret Farve brings a lot of excitement and the fans of the Vikings are currently very happy to have him. Unfortunately for them it is highly unlikely he will be able to maintain his performance over such a long and grueling season. Recent history has proven that any success he has had is short lived due to his gunslinger mentality. His techniques have become flawed and over time he will always overplay his hand.

I think there is a learning moment in there somewhere.

As for Mr. Weeks we can all make an educated guess what he is up to. It’s a funny thing though, if he is speaking for the majority and doing the right thing. Why all the secrecy?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Kracken

Bret Farve brings a lot of excitement and the fans of the Vikings are currently very happy to have him. Unfortunately for them it is highly unlikely he will be able to maintain his performance over such a long and grueling season. Recent history has proven that any success he has had is short lived due to his gunslinger mentality. His techniques have become flawed and over time he will always overplay his hand.

As for Mr. Weeks we can all make an educated guess what he is up to. It’s a funny thing though, if he is speaking for the majority and doing the right thing. Why all the secrecy?

And why the: I'm leaving, I'm Back, I'm Leaving, I'm back? Just wondering? No one ever asked you to leave in the first place. You did that on your own accord. So just wondering why the constant change of heart?

[DEJ]

I think he has taken a shine to you OCD!!!

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by DEJ

I think he has taken a shine to you OCD!!!

LOL.. the only shine he can have is to shine my boat called OCD.. But I am kind of particular so that may not even work out...

[DEJ]

I found out why he was there, nothing to worry about.

[Kracken]

Are you going to keep us in suspense?

[DEJ]

I do not want to spoil el's fun, I will let him spill the beans however my gut tells me he will not as it has nothing to do with any of this.

[VtSteve]

It's not surprising that someone like Jack Weeks would be brought in to use cheap political tactics, lies and whatever, to get the agenda done. He's quite the insider indeed, so he's well-versed in these areas. At least one of his past assignments shows that he might not have the great judgement he pretends to.

Jack Weeks sounds like another political operative. I wonder how the people of New Hampshire feel about that?

Originally Posted by VtSteve

I wonder how the people of New Hampshire feel about that?

We're very happy to have him.

[NoRegrets]

You don't speak for all.
I am a NH resident for the past 22 years. I moved here after a 13 year stint in Massachusetts but could not afford the taxes or politics of Michael Dukakis. I am sure my opinion is absolutely opposite of yours! The elections are coming.....

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

You don't speak for all.
I am a NH resident for the past 22 years. I moved here after a 13 year stint in Massachusetts but could not afford the taxes or politics of Michael Dukakis. I am sure my opinion is absolutely opposite of yours! The elections are coming.....

You definately do not speak for me or my friends / family. I moved to NH only 5 years ago after vacationing on Lake Winni for 26 years. A place a know and love I am ashamed to see a legislature passing such "feel good" redundant laws.

I left Mass for similar reasons and was hoping NH would remain true to: Live Free or Die.....

Elections are around the corner and lets hope the good people of NH realize which direction this state has been taken and reverses it very quickly.

There are other political operatives other then Jack Weeks.. Wait and see.

Originally Posted by NoRegrets

The elections are coming.....

NR, Do you really think that the 7 people on this thread who think that there should be no limit on such a dangerous activity are going to swing an election? I hope the Republicans regain power too, but do you really think safety is a party-line issue? I don't think of the Democrats as the "Safety" party and as Republicans and the "No Rules" party, do you? I don't think that with over 60% of NH Republican voters favoring the Speed Limit, Republican candidates are going to be running on a "No Limits" campaign pledge.
While I admit that we might have had some arrogance in the Republican Party after having held court so long in the past, I hope and expect we'll see a Republican Party more in tune with the interests of its constituency next time around. The people I saw out on the lake last summer looked more like my idea of a "Republican" than the flamboyant trust babies in the $200K speedboats out there in previous years, no?
The more likely impact on Concord's decision will come from the big money behind the hi-speed boating industry. We'll need to be watching very carefully to see how those who got rich off ruining our lake try to influence the legislation.

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by elchase

NR, Do you really think that the 7 people on this thread who think that there should be no limit on such a dangerous activity are going to swing an election? I hope the Republicans regain power too, but do you really think safety is a party-line issue? I don't think of the Democrats as the "Safety" party and as Republicans and the "No Rules" party, do you? I don't think that with over 60% of NH Republican voters favoring the Speed Limit, Republican candidates are going to be running on a "No Limits" campaign pledge.
While I admit that we might have had some arrogance in the Republican Party after having held court so long in the past, I hope and expect we'll see a Republican Party more in tune with the interests of its constituency next time around. The people I saw out on the lake last summer looked more like my idea of a "Republican" that the flamboyant trust babies in the $200K speedboats out there in previous years, no?
The more likely impact on Concord's decision will come from the big money behind the hi-speed boating industry. We'll need to be watching very carefully to see how those who got rich off ruining our lake try to influence the legislation.

EL,

Lets get to the bottom of this fast:

1. Dangerous?? How so? again no report of any high speed accidents where another law (safe passage, BUI) would not have already been broken.

2. Safety... You keep saying Safety but there is no stats to back up your claim. Don't you want to see the studies as the winnfabs requested the 2 year period for?

3. I work very hard for my $, my boat is no where near $200K, and I have no trust fund. Aren't you making this a bit personal? which leads me to:

4. Why do you have personally such a hatred for these boats and boaters? You have been on these boards for relatively a short period of time and all you have done is consistently stirred the pot and insulted your fellow forum members. Why is that? What happened in your life that you can not stand Performance boaters. I swear we are all not bad guys. You may actually have a good time with us.

5. Please come clean and just admit it isn't the speeD limit you like, it is getting rid of a type of boat and people.

Cards are on the table.

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

Please come clean and just admit it isn't the speen (sic) limit you like it is getting rid of a type of boat and people.

I love speed boats. My uncle nearly won the Irwin Cup one year. He complained about the dirty boating tactics that cost him his victory right up until he passed away. My niece's husband has a beautiful Fountain that can allegedly do almost 70 on a calm day (though I'd never condone such a speed in a boat by a non-professional pilot). My neighbor's dad used to take us out in his beautiful old 28' polished mahogany Chris Craft "speed boat" and thrill us at almost 40MPH...what a rush that speed was in those days. That same neighbor (now dead from lung cancer) got a Checkmate with a whopping 80HP Merc when we were teens (he was a bit of a spoiled brat), and we used to ski in the races out of the Weirs. But 43MPH was just too "slow" to win against some of those suped up boats coming up from MA. Some of those boats could do over 50, but those races were much-publicized and the MP was well-positioned around the course to maintain safety.
Things were much different then. The lake was not so crowded, scheduled events where boats would be going so fast were always well-noticed, and there were so few of those "fast" boats that it was really not anything like the mayhem of recent years. And none of those boats weighed six tons.
Many of today's performance boats are simply gorgeous and, honestly, I'd hate to see them leave. But then, you guys are all promising that you are not going anywhere, so we don't need to worry about that, right? And nobody is asking you to leave. We just want you to operate at a speed that is appropriate for today's Lake Winnipesaukee. What's the problem with that? All the people of NH want you to do is boat on our crowded lake at a speed that is reasonable and appropriate for today's conditions. 45 MPH is a perfect limit. It's a good compromise between the 30-35MPH top-end speed of probably over 90% of the lake's boats and the 60-70MPH top end speed of the few. It still allows for every type of boating activity that is appropriate for our lake, and it has become the standard for boating speed limits around the country and proven itself effective over and over.
But again, I just don't understand all the fuss. You guys all boast of your refusal to recognize and obey the law. You claim that the MP is making no effort to enforce it. You say the law is not chasing you away or changing your behavior, yet we are all happy as pie. So why argue against a status quo that is making us all so happy? We finally found something that works for almost everyone, let's just go with it.
And if some sore-losers are so mad that they are going to pull their beautiful boats out and take them elsewhere just to protest, then that is a shame, I'll truly miss the boats, but that's life. Those were probably the few idiots who created the problem in the first place and we are all better off without them. Too bad those drivers couldn't go and leave the boats.


NR,
Thanks, judging by that list, I am a true conservative. But here is another line that seems to fit your definition of a conservative (not mine), and to which I do not adhere;
If a conservative doesn't feel safe outside, he doesn't try to make it safer, he just stays home.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by elchase

I love speed boats. My uncle nearly won the Irwin Cup one year. He complained about the dirty boating tactics that cost him his victory right up until he passed away. My niece's husband has a beautiful Fountain that can allegedly do almost 70 on a calm day (though I'd never condone such a speed in a boat by a non-professional pilot). My neighbor's dad used to take us out in his beautiful old 28' polished mahogany Chris Craft "speed boat" and thrill us at almost 40MPH...what a rush that speed was in those days. That same neighbor (now dead from lung cancer) got a Checkmate with a whopping 80HP Merc when we were teens (he was a bit of a spoiled brat), and we used to ski in the races out of the Weirs. But 43MPH was just too "slow" to win against some of those suped up boats coming up from MA. Some of those boats could do over 50, but those races were much-publicized and the MP was well-positioned around the course to maintain safety.
Things were much different then. The lake was not so crowded, scheduled events where boats would be going so fast were always well-noticed, and there were so few of those "fast" boats that it was really not anything like the mayhem of recent years. And none of those boats weighed six tons.
Many of today's performance boats are simply gorgeous and, honestly, I'd hate to see them leave. But then, you guys are all promising that you are not going anywhere, so we don't need to worry about that, right? And nobody is asking you to leave. We just want you to operate at a speed that is appropriate for today's Lake Winnipesaukee. What's the problem with that? All the people of NH want you to do is boat on our crowded lake at a speed that is reasonable and appropriate for today's conditions. 45 MPH is a perfect limit. It's a good compromise between the 30-35MPH top-end speed of probably over 90% of the lake's boats and the 60-70MPH top end speed of the few. It still allows for every type of boating activity that is appropriate for our lake, and it has become the standard for boating speed limits around the country and proven itself effective over and over.
But again, I just don't understand all the fuss. You guys all boast of your refusal to recognize and obey the law. You claim that the MP is making no effort to enforce it. You say the law is not chasing you away or changing your behavior, yet we are all happy as pie. So why argue against a status quo that is making us all so happy? We finally found something that works fro almost everyone, let's just go with it.
And if some sore-losers are so mad that they are going to pull their beautiful boats out and take them elsewhere just to protest, then that is a shame, I'll truly miss the boats, but that's life. Those were probably the few idiots who created the problem in the first place and we are all better off without them. Too bad those drivers couldn't go and leave the boats.


NR,
Thanks, judging by that list, I am a true conservative. But here is another line that seems to fit your definition of a conservative (not mine), and to which I do not adhere;
If a conservative doesn't feel safe outside, he doesn't try to make it safer, he just stays home.

Honestly this is as well stated as you have ever made your point here on this forum. I completely and wholeheartedly disagree with you but for once you avoided snippy pointed comments and just posted your gut feelings on the law. I think the post is great it's just the opinions and points I disagree with.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by elchase

we used to ski in the races out of the Weirs. But 43MPH was just too "slow" to win against some of those suped up boats coming up from MA. Some of those boats could do over 50, but those races were much-publicized and the MP was well-positioned around the course to maintain safety.

Funny you should mention this. I knew all the skiers and drivers well. Just can't recall someone with the last name of Chase.

I was the driver of one of those bad ass boats. And we weren't from MA. either. We were just local boys having fun. And we continue to have our fun!

[jmen24]

Originally Posted by elchase

NR, Do you really think that the 7 people on this thread who think that there should be no limit on such a dangerous activity are going to swing an election? I hope the Republicans regain power too, but do you really think safety is a party-line issue? I don't think of the Democrats as the "Safety" party and as Republicans and the "No Rules" party, do you? I don't think that with over 60% of NH Republican voters favoring the Speed Limit, Republican candidates are going to be running on a "No Limits" campaign pledge.
While I admit that we might have had some arrogance in the Republican Party after having held court so long in the past, I hope and expect we'll see a Republican Party more in tune with the interests of its constituency next time around. The people I saw out on the lake last summer looked more like my idea of a "Republican" that the flamboyant trust babies in the $200K speedboats out there in previous years, no?
The more likely impact on Concord's decision will come from the big money behind the hi-speed boating industry. We'll need to be watching very carefully to see how those who got rich off ruining our lake try to influence the legislation.

Buddy, you are so off the deep end that you will likely never surface. You do not speak for the ideals of the majority of NH natives (and even some transplants) Its funny that you would want a Republican party when your views are completely left.

[NoRegrets]

Good Morning Elchase,

I am not sure if only 7 are against a total elimination of the SL. I think there were discussions on compromise. I for one do not like the law nor do I think the law has the impact some are pronouncing. As far as politics go I do not believe the law is a democratic or republican party issue. I believe both have valid economic positions. There are trickle up vs trickle down theories and many other valid points to debate. There are crooks that spoil the process on both sides that turn the debate into hatred and mob activity. So keep up the debate and dump the hatred. I believe it is a conservative vs. liberal approach or perspective we are debating.

Here is a humorous (there is truth in humor) list of the difference between a conservative and liberal:

"The difference between a Conservative and a Liberal..............

If a conservative doesn't like guns, they don't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, then no one should have one.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, they don't eat meat.
If a liberal is, they want to ban all meat products for everyone.

If a conservative sees a foreign threat, he thinks about how to defeat his enemy.
A liberal wonders how to surrender gracefully and still look good.

If a conservative is homosexual, they quietly enjoy their life.
If a liberal is homosexual, they loudly demand legislated respect.

If a black man or Hispanic is conservative, they see themselves as independently successful.
Their liberal counterparts see themselves as victims in need of government protection.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal wants any mention of God or religion silenced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A liberal demands that his neighbors pay for his."

[Yosemite Sam]

In January of 2008 a gentleman by the name of John Chase wrote an article in the Union Leader titled “Boat speed limits will make summers on big lake better”.
I wonder if elchase is somehow related to John Chase?

Will the real "Chase" standup please.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Yosemite Sam

In January of 2008 a gentleman by the name of John Chase wrote an article in the Union Leader titled “Boat speed limits will make summers on big lake better”.
I wonder if elchase is somehow related to John Chase?

Will the real "Chase" standup please.

Whomever it is, does not matter. It was a well-written letter, and I can find agreements with some of my own opinions in there. But..... there has to be a butt, everyone has one

1) "Last summer was the most enjoyable, comfortable, quietest and most recreational on Lake Winnipesaukee in many years. The visibility of marked patrol boats floating in open water, with officers in uniform pointing radar guns around, caused boaters to reconsider their speed."

That is possibly true, it certainly is on the road. But this letter was written in January, 2008. Most diehard SL supporters, including our own Mr. Chase, have commented that this year (2009), and last, 2008, were so much better than the mayhem and chaos before. So it looks like 2007 was a great summer on the lake as well? Hmmmm, sometimes it's hard to remember the stories you told before isn;t it?


1) "On a calm summer evening in 2002, an elderly Meredith man was out slowly boating with his family when he was run over and killed by a speeding 8,000 pound, 1,200 HP cigarette boat. The cigarette boat operator appealed his conviction to the state Supreme Court, where one of the Justices asked in amazement: "Isn't there a speed limit?" Why can everyone seem to recognize this omission except our Legislature?"


My personal pet peeve is this. I can't blame the SL supporters entirely, they seem to have little recourse other than to use this incident. I have absolutely no support for Littlefield here. He was apparently leaving the same docks that Mr. Hartman had left before him. He was so very obviously drunk to virtually everyone, but nobody stopped him from getting in his boat and leaving, and nobody stopped serving him drinks either.

The Justice did ask about the speed limits. But in each and every written statement, Littlefield's boat was said to be going 25 to 28 mph that night. Maybe it was 30, or even 35. Those that continually cite the Hartman tragedy always try to give everyone the perception it was a higher number. I have no magical powers to know, I wasn't there. But I do know this. The fact that Littlefield's family sold HP boats, Littlefield was in a Baja at the time, is reason enough for them to continually misrepresent what happened.

He was drunk. There may have been other possible reasons for this tragedy to occur, most of which are never, ever mentioned. Bottom line, Littlefield was sent to jail.

About 95% of my disagreement with the SL supporters is that they cannot, ever, engage in a legitimate discussion of safety, dealing with facts. El (or whomever), has written a splendid post recently. The vindictive writing style is gone, and now he loves the go fast boats, just not some of the drivers. I could agree with that statement about a multitude of craft on any lake, even some sailors.

But the fact remains, he and others already showed their true colors. They have already written about how they feel about these boats, drivers, supporters. El called SL opponents Felons for God's sake. Disingenuous does not even begin to describe a few of these people.

The true test for people like this was offered up some time ago in safety discussions. Since the SL agenda was their only focus, it would be impossible for them to discuss anything else. Even the weather was off limits. You be the judge.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

NR, Do you really think that the 7 people on this thread who think that there should be no limit on such a dangerous activity are going to swing an election? I hope the Republicans regain power too, but do you really think safety is a party-line issue? I don't think of the Democrats as the "Safety" party and as Republicans and the "No Rules" party, do you? I don't think that with over 60% of NH Republican voters favoring the Speed Limit, Republican candidates are going to be running on a "No Limits" campaign pledge.
While I admit that we might have had some arrogance in the Republican Party after having held court so long in the past, I hope and expect we'll see a Republican Party more in tune with the interests of its constituency next time around. The people I saw out on the lake last summer looked more like my idea of a "Republican" that the flamboyant trust babies in the $200K speedboats out there in previous years, no?
The more likely impact on Concord's decision will come from the big money behind the hi-speed boating industry. We'll need to be watching very carefully to see how those who got rich off ruining our lake try to influence the legislation.

How does one become a flamboyant trust fund baby- it sounds pretty good. Do bon-bons come with the position?

Not to become too political, but if the Dems and Repubs spent half as much time paying attention to the 80% of us in the middle and ignored the wackjobs that represent the 10% on either side, we would be much better off.

[chmeeee]

Originally Posted by elchase

NR, Do you really think that the 7 people on this thread who think that there should be no limit on such a dangerous activity are going to swing an election? I hope the Republicans regain power too, but do you really think safety is a party-line issue? I don't think of the Democrats as the "Safety" party and as Republicans and the "No Rules" party, do you? I don't think that with over 60% of NH Republican voters favoring the Speed Limit, Republican candidates are going to be running on a "No Limits" campaign pledge.

7 people, really? The polls taken here would disagree with you.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...ead.php?t=8420

I was reminded of your endless talk about safety and "fear" when I read this article:

http://www.themotorreport.com.au/441...hopping-areas/

FOLLOWING A STUDY by insurer AAMI that showed 77 percent of passenger car drivers consider four-wheel-drives a danger on the road, a new Queensland petition wants them banned from school zones and shopping areas.

Tabled by the opposition Liberal National Party (LNP) in Queensland’s state parliament this week, the petition - with 19,728 signatures - also called for higher registration fees for non-commercial roadgoing four-wheel-drives.

The petition focuses on what the LNP describes as the negative environmental impacts of four-wheel-drives, claiming that the large vehicles use almost twice as much fuel as regular passenger vehicles.

“A four-wheel-drive vehicle uses almost double the amount of fuel, emits 17 times the amount of air pollution and three times the greenhouse gases of a two-wheel drive vehicle,” the petition claims.
The petition says that in addition to their negative environmental and human health, four-wheel-drives represent a physical danger to pedestrians and smaller vehicles in a collision.

However a spokesperson for BMW Australia responded to the petition’s claims, saying the BMW X5 xDrive30D - which accounts for 80 percent of X5 sales - uses just 8.7 litres of fuel per 100km - less than both the Holden Commodore and Ford Falcon.

What does this have to do with our speed limit? Well very little of course, except that the group pushing for the law has little in the way of statistics backing up their argument, appears to be manufacturing some statistics (17 times a much pollution?), and is talking about fear since they don't have the safety statistics to push it forward.

[Airwaves]

Originally Posted by codeman671

What triple-fatality into a Gilford cottage and what Parker Island tragedy are you talking about? I am not familiar with either.

Here are the accidents APS is bringing up again. He had to go back 34 years to find the first one, and 12 years for the second "speed" related accident which was apparently a mechanic performing a test on a boat.

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...&postcount=651

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...7&postcount=44

.

[VtSteve]

But after the last post by APS, which references an accident from the 70's, if this is what they bring to the table..... I can't give them any degree of credibility. BI posted on the age-old accident last year, that if the lake had horsepower or size limits way back then, perhaps the accident would gave occurred still, but the boat that landed on the cottage would have been smaller or going slower?

I'd have more respect for people that simply campaigned for a law that limited boats to 50 HP and 19 feet in length. Just stay away from the water altogether, it's inherently dangerous.

[NoBozo]

The Parker Island accident actually was a bran new twin engine Donzi 33ZX that was being "commissioned' for the new owner by three mechanics from Goodhue Hawkins in Wolfeboro.

I happened to come on the scene about 20 minutes after it happened. It was around 4:00 PM on a beautiful bright sunny day in mid/late September with little or no wind. I think it was a Thursday or Friday. There was a big Dauphine Medivac helicopter hovering over the scene.

The boat was later hauled off the rocks back into the water and driven back to the dealer. There was no apparent mechanical cause for the accident. I doubt they were doing 70mph because if they had, they would probably have been catapulted clear across the island if that were the case.

If the cause was ever found, it has never been made public. NB

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Originally Posted by elchase

The people I saw out on the lake last summer looked more like my idea of a "Republican" that the flamboyant trust babies in the $200K speedboats out there in previous years, no?

The more likely impact on Concord's decision will come from the big money behind the hi-speed boating industry. We'll need to be watching very carefully to see how those who got rich off ruining our lake try to influence the legislation.

I'm not flamboyant, I don't have a trust, I'm not rich and my boat didn't cost $200K!! My wife and I have worked hard for what we have!! Get down off your high horse!

As for impacting Concord's decision, you and others like you have already snowed the Legislature with your lies and distortion. It's time they heard some facts!! And the last time I checked, the boating industry was having a tough time in this economy; they're not exactly rolling in the dough. I doubt they have money to spend on "influencing" the Legislature.

[BroadHopper]

Of the SL been wine and dining the legislature in his fancy resort. He even took them all out on a boat ride when there were two poker runs taking place. So who are the 'fat cats' now?

[tis]

I think you will find both accidents mentioned, the Littlefield one and the one on Parker Island were alcohol related. It is kind of like common knowledge. Even the family of the gentleman who hit Parker Island says that he was not often sober. They are a very, very nice family by the way. We discussed the family member when we sat with them at a wedding and so I know about his issue firsthand. That particular member just had a lot of problems.
So neither of these accidents can be blamed on speed.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by tis

I think you will find both accidents mentioned, the Littlefield one and the one on Parker Island were alcohol related. It is kind of like common knowledge. Even the family of the gentleman who hit Parker Island says that he was not often sober. They are a very, very nice family by the way. We discussed the family member when we sat with them at a wedding and so I know about his issue firsthand. That particular member just had a lot of problems.
So neither of these accidents can be blamed on speed.

To understand the arguments of the opponents here, you'll find that none of these headline-making "incidents" can be traced to any blame whatsoever.
Yes, they were called "incidents" before these totally-unforeseen tragedies were later called "accidents".

You see, the tragedies on other lakes don't count, tragedies on the ocean don't count, the boat size can't be blamed in tragedies, radar doesn't work on boats, the boat weight can't be blamed in tragedies, visibility from the boat doesn't count, polls don't count, the "stuffing of e-ballots" from other states and countries is held blameless, organized weekend events by GFBLs can't be blamed, the introduction of increased boater-education can't be faulted, "drugs" are always prescription drugs, horsepower is of no concern to other boaters, and now it's, "SPEED is 'innocent of all charges'"?

Supporters can only place blame on the 20% of Winnipesaukee boaters who don't have alcohol on board.

I'm SO confused.

[VtSteve]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

To understand the arguments of the opponents here, you'll find that none of these headline-making "incidents" can be traced to any blame whatsoever.
Yes, they were called "incidents" before these totally-unforeseen tragedies were later called "accidents".

You see, the tragedies on other lakes don't count, tragedies on the ocean don't count, the boat size can't be blamed in tragedies, radar doesn't work on boats, the boat weight can't be blamed in tragedies, visibility from the boat doesn't count, polls don't count, the "stuffing of e-ballots" from other states and countries is held blameless, organized weekend events by GFBLs can't be blamed, the introduction of increased boater-education can't be faulted, "drugs" are always prescription drugs, horsepower is of no concern to other boaters, and now it's, "SPEED is 'innocent of all charges'"?

Supporters can only place blame on the 20% of Winnipesaukee boaters who don't have alcohol on board.

I'm SO confused.

You're not confused APS. You've made it abundantly clear that speed is always the issue, but only when your least favorite boats are involved. I've seen bad boy, Type AAA people and their arrogance in anything from 18' bowriders to cruisers to go fasts and everything in between.

Do GFBL crashes and incidents take place? Of course they do, thankfully, most are far away from all of us. But some happen here, no doubt. Crashing into an island is more than likely not caused by high-speed, but sometimes, maybe it is. Would you be disappointed when a boat crashes into an island at 25 mph, and it's a pontoon boat? Perhaps disappointed isn't the proper word. DISINTERESTED more accurate?

Let's say Littlefield was going 40 mph, even 50 mph. My guess is everyone in the Hartman boat would have been dead or partially crushed, but there would be prop marks somewhere. Let's say the Formula Cruiser last year (not a go fast by any means), was doing 35 mph or more. Would the island have been easier to overcome? Do you guys shake your fists in anger, shouting foul, when the speed comes in at or under your favorite SL?

I think the difference between you and me, and the countless others that don't have such a fever about a class of boats. We tend to zero in on the trouble makers first, then the inexperienced boaters that, innocently enough, cause problems for others, even themselves.

I shake my head everytime I hear of a Stepped go-fast that has flipped, or ejected their occupants. I shake my head when people drown needlessly in small fishing boats in the early spring fishing season. I shake my head when a sailboat, under power, cuts across my bow in the channel, arrogantly pronouncing his own right of way.

Yes APS, we would all appreciate it if serious boater training would occur, in all craft. Yes, I know, go fasts, especially stepped-hull designs, require more training, as do cats. But interestingly enough, the only people that want to do something about it are almost all opponents of the SL. Why is that APS? Why are the gang of five of the most vocal proponents so adverse to engaging in any discussion? Heaven forbid the SL opponents engage in discussion with the MP, assisting them, searching for answers, or even helping them out to spot problem boaters.

Some of your diatribes from years past reveal that the SL law amounts to only 15% or so of your disdain for many on the lake. Yet you do nothing to point out infractions, unless is your least favorite group. You, and some of the even nastier SL proponents, have been visibly absent from any and all safety discussions. Your cynicism and rants dissuade many SL supporters from engaging many of us in the discussion. When facts are brought up, you show pictures from old incidents, without revealing anything that could possibly harm your precious agenda.

In short, the pro SL people that boat more frequently than others, have far more experience than the boneheads, have offered absolutely nothing in the way of promoting safety, encouraging discussion that could possibly help to educate more boaters. You guys are a one-trick pony, and deserve the lake you get.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...You're not confused APS. You've made it abundantly clear that speed is always the issue..."

Not so! My previous post was about drunks in 4½-TON boats. (The ones that actually do make the headlines that legislators read).

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Do GFBL crashes and incidents take place? Of course they do..."

Probably more often than you'd think: Littlefield drove off because he was likely drunk. The Coast Guard asserts that as many as 40% of crashes go unreported. Isn't a drunk less likely to report his crash? (The non-fatal ones, anyway).

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...But some happen here, no doubt. Crashing into an island is more than likely not caused by high-speed, but sometimes, maybe it is..."

Lake Winnipesaukee has many more islands than most lakes. The latest collision fatality was due to alcohol and the impairment of judgement that inevitably comes from the first taste of it. BTW: I think the crash was less than 30-MPH, though first I'd like to learn what it takes to detach an anchor from its mount—to launch it—and hit a house 25-feet away. (With chain attached).

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Would you be disappointed when a boat crashes into an island at 25 mph, and it's a pontoon boat? Perhaps disappointed isn't the proper word. DISINTERESTED more accurate..."?

Less disinterested if it was a hi-speed pontoon boat: Do you know the world's speed-record for a pontoon boat?

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Let's say Littlefield was going 40 mph, even 50 mph. My guess is everyone in the Hartman boat would have been dead or partially crushed, but there would be prop marks somewhere..."

Maybe there were prop marks. Maybe going slower would have resulted in eliminating the only witnesses!

That's why I repeatedly use the phrase "re-enactment" to determine exactly what happened that night. Is Littlefield's Baja still available? Or has it been "recommissioned" to a new owner?

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Let's say the Formula Cruiser last year (not a go fast by any means), was doing 35 mph or more. Would the island have been easier to overcome? Do you guys shake your fists in anger, shouting foul, when the speed comes in at or under your favorite SL...?"

If the collision were to have taken place just 50' to either side of the crash site, a house wouldn't be involved, nobody would have been killed—injuries and trauma to all involved—minimized. I think a "miss" against a shallower shoreline would have resulted in a "no report" to the NHMP.

The chief proponent of Lake Winnipesaukee's unlimited speeds agenda had overdriven her visibility due to the "liquid courage" that is brought to Winnipesaukee by 80% of boaters visiting here.

('Strange that those who should know their boats best—and know Winnipesaukee best—should create the biggest tragic headlines).

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...I think the difference between you and me, and the countless others that don't have such a fever about a class of boats. We tend to zero in on the trouble makers first, then the inexperienced boaters that, innocently enough, cause problems for others, even themselves..."

FWIW, I leave that to the NHMP.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...I shake my head everytime I hear of a Stepped go-fast that has flipped, or ejected their occupants..."

It's not just the "stepped" GFBLs that take lives, and most that do, eject all their occupants. We don't know how many were drunk.

(Because we skippers are ultimately responsible for them, let's call the occupants, "the passengers").

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...I shake my head when people drown needlessly in small fishing boats in the early spring fishing season..."

Some are drunk. Some don't let the weather affect their weekend. Some small craft are made dangerous by those "blameless" wakes. Sometimes, it's all three.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...I shake my head when a sailboat, under power, cuts across my bow in the channel, arrogantly pronouncing his own right of way..."

It's been the case for as long as there have been powerboats. Should US law be changed because you don't like "arrogant sailboats" on Lake Champlain?

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Yes APS, we would all appreciate it if serious boater training would occur, in all craft. Yes, I know, go fasts, especially stepped-hull designs, require more training, as do cats. But interestingly enough, the only people that want to do something about it are almost all opponents of the SL. Why is that APS...?"

Because it's the 20% non-drinking family boaters (as in my family—when boating) who are too-often the victims?

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Why are the gang of five of the most vocal proponents so adverse to engaging in any discussion? Heaven forbid the SL opponents engage in discussion with the MP, assisting them, searching for answers, or even helping them out to spot problem boaters..."

My guess is that we "Supporters" don't attempt to "smooze" the NHMP. We expect they will act appropriately with the laws they are charged with enforcing.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Some of your diatribes from years past reveal that the SL law amounts to only 15% or so of your disdain for many on the lake. Yet you do nothing to point out infractions, unless is your least favorite group. You, and some of the even nastier SL proponents, have been visibly absent from any and all safety discussions..."

I brought a brand-new PFD "message" to the forum early this morning.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...Your cynicism and rants dissuade many SL supporters from engaging many of us in the discussion. When facts are brought up, you show pictures from old incidents, without revealing anything that could possibly harm your precious agenda..."

It's not just cynicism born of three generations' long-association with Lake Winnipesaukee. Those "old pictures" bring to mind what Santayana said best, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...You guys are a one-trick pony, and deserve the lake you get..."

We'll see: Minus "the usual suspects"—it's a lake I can "live" with.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

"...In short, the pro SL people that boat more frequently than others, have far more experience than the boneheads, have offered absolutely nothing in the way of promoting safety, encouraging discussion that could possibly help to educate more boaters..."

1) When I perceived the problem, I wrote a letter that proved to be prescient by just three days.

2) This morning I posted (here) the Coast Guard warnings I just found on our newest PFD acquisition. I hope that promotes a clearer understanding of the speeding issues on all protected inland waters.

3) Seeing where this thread is otherwise headed...I'll take this opportunity to post my "signature piece" from last year's discussion:

[Kracken]

Maybe I need to reread my boating safety book. I always thought if a sailboat is being propelled by a motor, it is no longer considered a sailboat, and must obey the powerboat rules. Therefore if a sailboat under power cuts across VtSteve’s bow from the port side or entering a channel, the sailboat is the give-way boat. VtSteve has the right to shake his head.

[DoTheMath]

it seems that the SL, BWI and "performance boats" seem to have a bit of a "kin-ship" - a mutual-INclusivity on this forum, as mentioned on more than one occasion by SL proponents.

Thus - I am curious how the speed limit will "cure" the issue of boating while under the influence of alcohol!?

Let's just say - for conversations sake - that there is a speed limit on the lake of... I duuno... something as ridiculous as 45mph. Now, if you were under the influence of alcohol - basically, intoxicated by what is at least the legal limit of .08? or above and you are cruising across the lake at 40mph in, oh let's see... maybe a 24ft bowrider that weighs 5,500lbs (operating weight) with an 18lb stainless prop on it, btw . Are you LESS likely to get into some sort of "accident" because you are going UNDER the "posted" speed limit, and / or because of the boat you are piloting? Keep in mind, the operator is drunk at this point in this hypothetical scenario... Hmmm...

Again, I call back to the operator that it is THEIR responsibility to act and operate their boat in a manner that is safe and prudent for the prevailing conditions. Mind you, there is NEVER a set of conditions that prevails where boating while under the influence of anything that lessens your ability to operate your vessel - and react defensively to avoid an incident - 100%, is acceptable! People have all kinds of nicknames for a can of beer, one that stands out - "can's of courage" - be it when you are asking out a girl in a social setting, being challenged to do something by your buddies that you may otherwise not... AND quite possibly operating your boat beyond both its, and the operators capabilities. So, if the operator is intoxicated, do you really think that the SL will invoke an additional measure of safety... yeah, doubt it!

Someone mentioned in another thread / post about having an MP presence at the main town docks on weekends / Friday and Saturday nights, Meredith, Weirs, Wolfeboro, etc... keeping an eye out for a potential incident BEFORE it occurs. Great idea BTW - really, they do it at the bars on dry land, why not the water!? If you saw the authorities walking the docks, talking to boaters, just interacting with the boaters, wouldn't you think twice about getting tanked and coming back to your boat to face a conversation with the MP or that towns PD!?!? If a bar can hire a cop to be on detail at their door, why not appoint one to patrol the docks on the busy nights, I guarantee you would see a drop in BWI incidents, and by extension - "Capt. Boneheads"!

Speed - once again - is not the enemy people, an increasing lack of common sense and good judgement however... seems to be.

[NoBozo]

Will you look at THAT. The EL Man CAVED under the HEAT. (Post 101..Thanks) Who would have thunk??? NB






Don't hit me...

Originally Posted by NoBozo

Will you look at THAT. The EL Man CAVED under the HEAT.

From Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: 1troll
Pronunciation: \ˈtrōl\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, probably from Anglo-French *troiller, *troller; akin to Anglo-French troil, trolle winch
Date: 15th century
transitive verb
1 : to cause to move round and round : roll
2 a : to sing the parts of (as a round or catch) in succession b : to sing loudly c : to celebrate in song
3 a : to fish for by trolling b : to fish by trolling in c : to pull through the water in trolling d : to search in or at ; also : prowl
intransitive verb
1 : to move around : ramble
2 a : to fish by trailing a lure or baited hook from a moving boat b : search, look ; also : prowl
3 : to sing or play in a jovial manner
4 : to speak rapidly

—noun
1 : NoBozo

[Lakegeezer]

From Wikipedia....

In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts controversial, inflammatory, irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response^[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.^[2]

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

What gets me about John Chase’s letter is, in the first paragraph, he states (remember, he’s referring to 2007; my emphasis added here in bold print).

With no apparent impact on its budget or ability to effectively attend to other responsibilities, it (Marine Patrol) occasionally placed radar-armed officers strategically around the lake last summer (here he is referring to 2007) and randomly measured the speed of boating traffic. The Marine Patrol issued no tickets and never had to spend a related hour in court to defend a citation. It did not even need to calibrate its equipment or certify its officers. Yet its study found exactly what those of us who live and boat on the lake already knew -- there were very few boats speeding on Lake Winnipesaukee last summer.

In the next paragraph, he asks if the SL supporters are “paranoid” (his word!) or

does this say that when there is even a modicum of enforcement, or a threat of measurement, or an inkling of incentive, people will operate their boats at reasonable speeds?

and finally summarizes with,

Doesn't this really all just say that there is no speeding problem when boaters think they might be under observation?

He went on to say,

The program proved that speed limits work and are, for the most part, self-enforcing.

HUH?!?!? WHAT?!? Did I miss something?!?!?

How could a speed limit that didn’t exist in 2007 “work”?? How could a non-existent law be “self-enforcing”??

I don’t know about the rest of you, but in 2007, 2008 AND, for the most part, 2009, MY particular cruising/boating habits didn’t really change, with the exception that, in 2009, I could no longer take a WOT (that’s Wide Open Throttle for anyone reading this that doesn’t know) run across the Broads or any part of the lake, for that matter, WHEN THE CONDITIONS WERE FAVORABLE (something I did on occasion PRIOR to 2009)! I normally cruise, then and now, around 45mph. Prior to the SL law, I would occasionally take a speed run in the more open areas of the lake when the traffic was low and the water wasn’t too rough; my boat is only 25ft so high speed on choppy water is NOT a good thing!

I guess I just don’t understand the logic of the SL supporters! First, they say boating on Winni in 2007 and 2008 (yes, some even said 2008!) was paradise (I am not making that up). AND, in Mr. Chase’s letter, he admits that NO tickets for speeding were written and NO MP officers spent any time in court on a SL-related citation!! Here’s the kicker; in 2008, there was NO data collection going on and NO “radar-armed officers (placed) strategically around the lake”!!!

So HOW can it be that the lake was SO peaceful and quiet when there was NO SL law on the books being enforced?? Gee, you don’t suppose it’s because the constant, high-speed boaters on the lake don’t really exist, do you? Or maybe that the chaos the SL supporters keep referring to in the past was caused primarily by people ignoring the 150’ rule and no wake zones, which, by the way, they STILL do to this day?? NOOOOOOOOO, it couldn’t be THAT!!

Regarding this statement by Mr. Chase, “The visibility of marked patrol boats floating in open water, with officers in uniform pointing radar guns around, caused boaters to reconsider their speed.”, I would offer that nobody HAD to reconsider their speed because for one thing, there was no SL law in effect in 2007 (therefore, no one had to fear getting a ticket!) and the other thing is, there simply aren’t that many boats, high performance or otherwise, going that fast all the time.

The last point I’d like to bring up is this; why are the SL supporters so amazed that these so-called hundreds of GF boats on the lake slowed down simply because there is a SL law? Let me ask you, considering the millions of cars on this country’s roadways (196 million by one statistic I just found), do you see a couple million cars travelling at 90-100mph on the highway?? No?? Why is that? Because for the most part, they know better. No matter how fast they’d LIKE to be driving, MOST people will usually obey a speed limit if it’s reasonable PLUS, they don't want to pay a ticket and increased insurance premiums. Same thing on Winni; just because we slowed down, doesn't mean we agree with the law!! Remember, we aren't all "trust babies" in "$200K speedboats"!!!

Most people think 70mph on the interstate is reasonably fast; several boaters on Winni (myself included) think 45mph on the lake, when the conditions are good (usually meaning safe), is too slow. At the same time, there are numerous times on the lake when, given the conditions, 45mph is way too fast. And that’s the key, determining a safe speed, given the conditions! People need to educate themselves to make the correct decision; they need to use common sense. Unfortunately, a lot of them don't.

My apologies for the long post; I had ALOT on my mind!!