In the Spirit of Compromise....

OCDACTIVE · 08-12-2009, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elchase

Is this really what you call a compromise? This whole thread should be renamed "opposers other thread". We have a small group of people here who "don't even own a go-fast boat" yet have dedicated their every waking hour of the past year complaining about a speed limit that is "doing absolutely nothing" and "doesn't even affect them" because the limit "is higher than their boats can go anyway", plus one member that claims to be a speed limit supporter but appears willing to say anything to gain the acceptance of the go-fasters. And this is supposed to be some sort of "all-inclusive compromise committee"?
It's kind of like having all the teams in the NFL that did not make the playoffs discussing a "compromise" that will put them in the playoffs even though they stink.
Things are working just fine right now. Let's not muck it up with a reversal disguised as a "compromise". The speed limit was already written as a compromise; one lake in the whole state, and as fast as 45 miles per hour, which over 95% of the lake's boats can't even reach. No horsepower, size, or weight limitations. How can people really sincere about safety and sharing not be happy with this law and recognize what a perfect compromise it already is?
Now, I'm sure that my post will be called "trolling" because I will not agree that the SL isn't working, but isn't it really the only post in this thread that is really recognizing what a "compromise" is?

EL, while your opinion is your opinion, all of your posts are not geared towards discussing a compromise rather then shooting down any idea other then what is on the books. We all know you do not want anything changed so there is really nothing more for you to point out.

It would be appreciated that if you do not want discuss or negotiate as we have now done for the past 36 hours in a very cival and just manner, please take your posts to the supporters thread becasue clearly you are in support of what is on the books and nothing else. I would ask the webmaster to help with keeping the discussion going for the purpose of what the thread was intended. negotiation / compromising.

ApS · 08-12-2009, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...I would ask the webmaster to help with keeping the discussion going for the purpose of what the thread was intended. negotiation / compromisomg..."

There's absolutely nothing that can replace a narrow discussion among those who engage in self-congratulations and self-admiration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

"...there is really nothing more for you to point out..."

Quote:

"In a room full of hob-nailed boots—those wearing sandals perceive discrimination..."
—Confucius

'
'
'
'
'

It may not have been Confucius that said that—I forget

NoRegrets · 08-12-2009, 10:28 AM

"...Things are working just fine right now. Let's not muck it up with a reversal disguised as a "compromise". The speed limit was already written as a compromise; one lake in the whole state, and as fast as 45 miles per hour, which over 95% of the lake's boats can't even reach...." elchase

What is your problem? I have a family cruiser that can destroy the night limit and can break the day limit. It really sucks that the limits eliminate a pleasure that some have invested in and gain pleasure from. Things are not fine as you mentioned. The law is not for safety as the SL group plays. Evidence of safe operations above the current temporary limit is easy to prove. I believe the SL is for control of the resource by a small group of "if I don't like it nobody else should be able to do it" people.

The suggestions by everyone in this thread have been towards a compromise in a reflective and jovial tone with only one noticable exception!

I have to say I am very impressed with BI in these sessions of discussions and thank all who contribute so much time in articulating their thoughts!

VtSteve · 08-12-2009, 11:34 AM

I do not think either side can effectively negotiate a compromise at this time. The supporters are trying to rush through the Legislature and make the bill permanent. The reasoning is that they do not feel there is sufficient data to defeat the sunset provision. I agree. I also agree that there is not enough data for anyone to determine anything, other than the lake being quieter this year.

For those that claimed it's quieter due to the law? I can only state this. Those on your side that are trying to change the status of the bill have stated themselves there is not enough data to support their claims. They disagree with El's broad statement about traffic being up, primarily because both the MP and their own group have stated that traffic on the lake, as well as registrations, slip rentals, and boat sales are all down.

In an attempt to prove something that is simply not true, people have made the claims that the lake is safer due to the law as it is.

In the spirit of common sense, I can only conclude two things here.

The sunset provision must be extended for further evaluation. You can tinker with the daytime speed limit if possible. But I would further assert that the MP has to take as proactive a role to study the situation further, and try to report their findings periodically. In any event, the safety wording of the current law should remain in tact.

There is only one group afraid of the sunset provision. They are the diehards. If they wish to prove their point at some time, it will have to be done with interviews, real life observations, and factual data. I would be perfectly willing to review the data, ALL of it, from 2008, 2009, AND 2010.

Kracken · 08-12-2009, 11:58 AM

Thanks OCDACTIVE,

And until your boat is fixed you are welcome to take a ride in mine.

It's not the antarctic blue sports wagon with a C.B. radio and "The Rally Fun-Pack”. It is the a pea green Wagon Queen Family Truckster. You think you hate it now, but wait till you drive it to Shibley’s.

OCDACTIVE · 08-12-2009, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

Thanks OCDACTIVE,

It's not the antarctic blue sports wagon with a C.B. radio and "The Rally Fun-Pack”. It is the a pea green Wagon Queen Family Truckster. You think you hate it now, but wait till you drive it

I am not your everyday fool... I don't want to drive it, I just want my old car back..............

OCDACTIVE · 08-12-2009, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kracken

Thanks OCDACTIVE,

And until your boat is fixed you are welcome to take a ride in mine.

It's not the antarctic blue sports wagon with a C.B. radio and "The Rally Fun-Pack”. It is the a pea green Wagon Queen Family Truckster. You think you hate it now, but wait till you drive it to Shibley’s.

Very funny.. Thank you.. I do have two other boats... a party boat (yup thats right I drive a tri-toon as well!!!!!, and a small center consol fishing boat... So before people jump on me for thinking I only enjoy the lake going fast.........think again..

But thank you I do appreciate the offer.. I will be up the weekend of the 29th for my son's 2nd bday, but other then that I am now back to working weekends to save for the rebuild and paint job.. So no more lake for me

If I end up down your way I will definately drop you a line.

08-12-2009, 10:28 AM	#3
NoRegrets Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Hudson - NH Posts: 408 Thanks: 233 Thanked 212 Times in 88 Posts	elchase???? "...Things are working just fine right now. Let's not muck it up with a reversal disguised as a "compromise". The speed limit was already written as a compromise; one lake in the whole state, and as fast as 45 miles per hour, which over 95% of the lake's boats can't even reach...." elchase What is your problem? I have a family cruiser that can destroy the night limit and can break the day limit. It really sucks that the limits eliminate a pleasure that some have invested in and gain pleasure from. Things are not fine as you mentioned. The law is not for safety as the SL group plays. Evidence of safe operations above the current temporary limit is easy to prove. I believe the SL is for control of the resource by a small group of "if I don't like it nobody else should be able to do it" people. The suggestions by everyone in this thread have been towards a compromise in a reflective and jovial tone with only one noticable exception! I have to say I am very impressed with BI in these sessions of discussions and thank all who contribute so much time in articulating their thoughts!

The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to OCDACTIVE For This Useful Post:
BroadHopper (08-12-2009), chipj29 (08-12-2009), chmeeee (08-12-2009), Dave R (08-12-2009), hazelnut (08-12-2009), NoRegrets (08-12-2009), Rattlesnake Guy (08-12-2009)

08-12-2009, 11:34 AM	#4
VtSteve Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 1,320 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 230 Thanked 361 Times in 169 Posts	I do not think either side can effectively negotiate a compromise at this time. The supporters are trying to rush through the Legislature and make the bill permanent. The reasoning is that they do not feel there is sufficient data to defeat the sunset provision. I agree. I also agree that there is not enough data for anyone to determine anything, other than the lake being quieter this year. For those that claimed it's quieter due to the law? I can only state this. Those on your side that are trying to change the status of the bill have stated themselves there is not enough data to support their claims. They disagree with El's broad statement about traffic being up, primarily because both the MP and their own group have stated that traffic on the lake, as well as registrations, slip rentals, and boat sales are all down. In an attempt to prove something that is simply not true, people have made the claims that the lake is safer due to the law as it is. In the spirit of common sense, I can only conclude two things here. The sunset provision must be extended for further evaluation. You can tinker with the daytime speed limit if possible. But I would further assert that the MP has to take as proactive a role to study the situation further, and try to report their findings periodically. In any event, the safety wording of the current law should remain in tact. There is only one group afraid of the sunset provision. They are the diehards. If they wish to prove their point at some time, it will have to be done with interviews, real life observations, and factual data. I would be perfectly willing to review the data, ALL of it, from 2008, 2009, AND 2010.

08-12-2009, 11:58 AM	#5
Kracken Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Alton Posts: 223 Thanks: 46 Thanked 130 Times in 50 Posts	Thanks OCDACTIVE, And until your boat is fixed you are welcome to take a ride in mine. It's not the antarctic blue sports wagon with a C.B. radio and "The Rally Fun-Pack”. It is the a pea green Wagon Queen Family Truckster. You think you hate it now, but wait till you drive it to Shibley’s.