No Wake at the Barbers Pole...???

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

I saw a number of people go on the wrong side of the marker in the channel. I've never seen anyone hit a rock over there. The more I look at the channel the more I see the best solution being the removal of the few rocks in the channel and subsequently removing the marker. It'll probably never happen though.

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!!

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

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!!

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?

[MAXUM]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

Talk about the tail wagging the dog!!

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.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by MAXUM

It's all about power and control based on their idea of how things should be and of course what makes them "feel" good. Some are just so pathetic they can't even make a point without contradiction.

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. NB

[Rose]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Not videotaping was an error.

Where's your videotape from your journey over there?

[Woodsy]

Originally Posted by Kracken

All I can say is WOW. I am sitting in Pat O'Brien's on Bourbon Street LA. This thread is more entertaining than my current surroundings. Seriously, the "best fishing spot on the lake" is more important than wakes, kayaking, and safety? Do you guys read your own posts at all?

Have a Hurricane or 2 for me!


Woodsy

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Huh, let's try to respond to your post, but in English...too much Tanqueray? You know, you can use the edit feature. It does seem that I too put myself in danger of one of your "midnight missives" but the residents of the BP seem to have expressed their concerns quite eloquently. It would seem that there needs to be a rule that SBONH members/officers should not be allowed to correspond on Winni.com after cocktail hour.

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.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Seaplane Pilot

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.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

You sound like a very angry person.

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

SP

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Rose

Where's your videotape from your journey over there?

I'd made no promises.

[Sue Doe-Nym]

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" ?

[Turtle Boy]

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.

[KPW]

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Sue Doe-Nym

there will be a new hearing on the Barber Pole NWZ on October 1, at 10:00 A.M. at the Tuftonboro Meeting House.

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

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

"We did everything right."

[Little Bear]

Originally Posted by KPW

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

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?

[Sue Doe-Nym]

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?

[hazelnut]

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.

[KPW]

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

[ApS]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

The hearing was fairly well attended.

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.

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

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!

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:

"The NWZ is too long—we and our neighbors have been water-skiing through there for ages. "

[OCDACTIVE]

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.

[Hammond]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

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.

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 and thank you.

[Bearislandmoose]

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.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

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.

Nice try

[Bearislandmoose]

Tough crowd.

[Joe Kerr]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Tough crowd.

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

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

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. {snip} you could do pretty much as you pleased without worrying about your speed. I agree with OCD, its time to put the throttle down.

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.

[webmaster]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

When people try to stir the pot, even stirring so obviously as above, it's usually met by a Webmaster that points out if the IP addy is the same as another current user.

Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

[winni83]

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.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by webmaster

Bearislandmoose and elchase post from the same IP number.

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.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

We are becoming keenly aware of the tactics of the pro speed limit group and some of their supporters...If you are not Turtle Boy, SOTD, ElChase or APS in moose clothing then I believe they put you up to this.

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.

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

Those who are afraid of SBONH and wish to discredit them and their organization.

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

In the immortal words of Wednesday-Friday Addams,

"Just wait"

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Hammond

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.

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.

[winni83]

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.

[jrc]

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.

[winni83]

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.

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

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.

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

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by OCDACTIVE

What an attempt to try to stir the pot

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.

Originally Posted by winni83

I think this poster has crossed the line

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.

[chipj29]

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.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Good job on uncovering this scam SBONH!

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

[chipj29]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

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

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.

[NoBozo]

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

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

There have been some great replies to the BP NWZ topic, both pro and con, many in the I don't Know yet category. OCD had some good feedback, Hazelnut was extremely articulate in the entire discussion. They both pointed out pros and cons, like adults that care. Best of all, they are inclusive.

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

Originally Posted by VtSteve

It was the principle of the thing, and done by people with no principle, and selfish regard only for themselves.

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.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

There are at least three here that remind me how important it is to be truthful to yourself and others. It must be a soulless existence to not know the difference.

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.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Joe Kerr

Come on now BearIslandMoose. We're not a "tough crowd" but a wise crowd. Wise to you and your kind of trolling and propaganda. ...The forum isn't buying your bull moose...

The best part about this one is that OCD gives you a big "Thanks" for this nonsense, as if you said just what he was thinking when he read my post. What he doesn't mention is the PM he sent to bearislandmoose right after that post...before he knew who bearislandmoose really was, welcoming me aboard, and giving me his phone number to call. What a bunch of phonies.
If you guys had named your group "Fast Boaters of New Hampshire", I'd still disagree with your agenda but would have nothing but respect for your honesty. I respect a good healthy disagreement...democracy in action. But naming yourselves "Safe Boaters", as if the people of NH are too stupid to not see through that, says everything about you and your collective honesty. I've never seen that name said without the speaker putting air quotes around the word "safe". It's like a crooked car salesman using the name "Honest John", or the biggest guy on the football team being named "Little Bill". Ya, that makes it true.
And riding the coatskirts of the honorable Power Squadron as they did their inspections to gain false integrity, then introducing ITL-ready bills through some shill of a representative to try to build a false reputation, are the things that really deserve such outrage. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Admit "Safe Boaters" one and only ultimate goal...to repeal the SL, and I will praise your integrity while I work against you. But play these dishonest games, and you have no excuse to call anything "over the line", or calling anyone else "dishonest". What could possibly be more "over the line" or "dishonest" than using the name "Safe Boaters" for this group of cowboys and scofflaws? Instead of directing your outrage at the phony who has embarrassed you with that moniker, you praise him...and you try to make a huge controversy out of something so trivial as a phony post under a phony name that makes a perfect point...on an internet forum. Your protest is so shallow as to be pathetic.
I have to give you credit though Joe. Assuming your name is really Joe Kerr, at least you have the fortitude to use your name before you criticize others for not using theirs. Is Joe Kerr really your name? If not, I take that back.

And who is this purveyor of wisdom from Vermont? Can I use some of those gems in my upcoming book on the Human Experience? Is that Leo Sandy in disguise? Give me a break.

[fatlazyless]

Not sure if this link www.bigbadboat.com is relevant to this thread. If the link works, it has an article about the Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, 'SBONH', that's titled "New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake WinniPesaukee Open for Performance Boaters" and it is dated September 23, 2010.

...thankyou very much!

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake Winnipesaukee Open for Performance Boaters"

How is this "news"?

[Bearislandmoose]

Wow. Reading the forum rules at that group's website, it's no wonder nobody with an opposing view has ever joined in. Sounds like they will instantly delete any opposing view, publish the identity of the poster, and then ban him from the site. They reserve the right to delete any post that does not agree with their positions? I guess that answers the obvious question why almost every post on a "safe boating" forum seems to bash a reasonable and popular speed limit (that is working so well), brand those who support it "old coots", and sound like it was written by another member of the Thunder Club.

And most onerous, they threaten to "take legal action" against anyone who tells what is being said on the site...sort of like the rules of the Skull and Bones Society, and the Mafia. So for instance, if we had a post from the founder of the club telling what his real goal for the club is, or bragging about how he disregards our laws, or talking about how fast he has been going on a 45mph lake, or talking about all the alcohol he consumes, like he has done on this forum, and we mentioned that to non "Safe Boaters", he would sue us? And this from the same group of people who have sometimes called the moderator of this forum a "Nazi"?

[fatlazyless]

...good morning Pineedles....hey....got a quik question 4 U......it's that capital 'P' in WinniPesaukee....which is how the www.bigbadboat.com decided to spell it in their headline "New Activist Group Seeks to Keep Lake WinniPesaukee Open for Performance Boaters"

...I honestly have no clue about that 'P' but just maybe it's all about them wanting to put the 'P' as in Performance back into Winnipesaukee? What do you think? Got any insight on their 'P' ?

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Wow. Reading the forum rules at that group's website, it's no wonder nobody with an opposing view has ever joined in. Sounds like they will instantly delete any opposing view, publish the identity of the poster, and then ban him from the site. They reserve the right to delete any post that does not agree with their positions? I guess that answers the obvious question why almost every post on a "safe boating" forum seems to bash a reasonable and popular speed limit (that is working so well), brand those who support it "old coots", and sound like it was written by another member of the Thunder Club.

And most onerous, they threaten to "take legal action" against anyone who tells what is being said on the site...sort of like the rules of the Skull and Bones Society, and the Mafia. So for instance, if we had a post from the founder of the club telling what his real goal for the club is, or bragging about how he disregards our laws, or talking about how fast he has been going on a 45mph lake, or talking about all the alcohol he consumes, like he has done on this forum, and we mentioned that to non "Safe Boaters", he would sue us? And this from the same group of people who have sometimes called the moderator of this forum a "Nazi"?

These aforementioned forum rules will need to be pointed out in the future when someone states in our state legislature that "every member of the SBONH forum supports repeal of the SL". I too am disturbed by the many alcohol references by OCD in offshoreonly.com and the bragging of nearly doubling the SL on this forum (it is my understanding that hard copies were made of said admissions).

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by sunset on the dock

These aforementioned forum rules will need to be pointed out in the future when someone states in our state legislature that "every member of the SBONH forum supports repeal of the SL". I too am disturbed by the many alcohol references by OCD in offshoreonly.com and the bragging of nearly doubling the SL on this forum (it is my understanding that hard copies were made of said admissions).

Thanks to you and my buddy BIM (or El Chase or Ed Chase or Warren or whatever his name is today) for the comedic relief!

Have a great day!

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Why not talk about how a small group of people tried to sneak in a bill that no one else even knew about... Not one comment from you regarding that.

I guess you didn't read my earlier post where I did just that. I'll give it to you again (if you can excuse my "parsing");

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

...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.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Hammond

Did they address the Barber Pole No Wake Zone situation?

Regarding that Barber Pole No Wake zone situation; you guys were the petitioners and biggest proponents of the undeserved personal No Wake Zone in front of the house of one of your own a couple of 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 real 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?

[sound of crickets chirping]

I didn't think so.

The hypocracy is comical.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

You are such an idiot. ...

And you are such a Democrat. This is so typical a response from someone like you. We have apparently decided that there are no more lines to be crossed. Resorting to such childishness as name-calling might work for you at the bar, but I am not intimidated. Aggressive behavior is no longer going to work for you and your buddies. It doesn't work on the lake, it won't work on the forum. As impossible as this may sound, you have further embarrassed yourself.
Is this how you talk to your little students? This is why home-schooling is gaining so much popularity. Who would want to trap their little girl or boy in a classroom with a "teacher" who talks like this? Do you beat them physically too, or just emotionally?

[winni83]

Let’s see if I have this right. Anyone one who disagrees with BIM, El C or Ed C or his cadre is “emotionally pre-pubescent or blind, or both” or even worse, a “Democrat”. Perhaps some of your supporters might be of that politically persuasion. Your self serving and patently false descriptions of how “heavenly” it is as result of the speed limit fool on one and you are simply preaching to your adoring choir and producing word bites in an attempt to denigrate all those who disagree with you.

As I noted previously:

“Obviously, there has been a death among the deities and APS, SOTD, TB, BI, El-C et. al. have been appointed to determine infallibly what is reasonable and civilized for us all, whether it be speed, horsepower, size or type of boat, no wake zones or whatever else annoys or disturbs them from time to time.”

BIM, El C or Ed C refers to hypocrisy, childishness and idiocy. He should look in the mirror for perfect examples, assuming that the mirror does not fracture in horror. Your pathetic attempts to insult someone like Hazelnut demonstrate your true character. Suggesting on a public forum that someone may beat children or abuse them emotionally is beyond contempt. When you have no remaining rational arguments, you resort to this. And to think that someone would thank you for that post! Your tactics are those of a megalomaniac and despot.

With such a fearless, honest, honorable and never deceptive leader as BIM, El C or Ed C and his band of sycophants, we can all sleep, or boat, well.

[Bearislandmoose]

This unmoderated forum is great, it allows you guys to show your real simian selves and degrade into the behavior that you use to display when you were behind the wheels of your thunder boats. The slightest frustration, and you turn into babbling and vulgar bullies.
The lake was just great this summer...just like the summer before. No high speed accidents, nobody killed because someone was driving his (or her) boat too fast. The kids camps were taking their members out canoeing again. Sailing returned in a big way. Trolling for salmon in the Broads was enjoyable again. It was Winnipesaukee the way it is supposed to be... The way it always was before you...the way it is depicted in our tourism brochures and ads. It was shared safely and enjoyably by everyone. You guys repeatedly talked about how the SL did not chase you away or slow you down, so obviously, it was not a problem for you. But that backfired, so now you are trying to claim differently...even resorting to some silly tactic that you are all buying Carvers to swamp us and teach us a lesson. What good sports you are.
You just oppose the SL because you did not get your way, as you are so accustomed. You just don't like rules and limitations no matter how reasonable. If we asked for a 200MPH SL, you would have opposed it and you'd be fighting to repeal it.

"Safe" boaters my ***. You can put lipstick on a pig, but its still a pig.

[winni83]

Q. E. D.

Thanks.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Not one person in the SBONH had anything to do with any other NWZ on the lake.

How can this be stated as fact?

No members from Winnilakers, SOS or NHRBA among this lake's "Safest-Boaters" mob?

[jrc]

Watching this is weird, it's like some of the old usenet groups in the 1990's. I trying to guess who will break Godwin's law first.

Calling someone a Democrat doesn't count.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Is Yosemite Sam and Acres Per Second the same person? I find it strange that Y.S. has thanked APS several times and it doesn't fit his profile.

Another mystery solved! Another scoundrel unmasked! Or perhaps YS is Warren, who is also Ed, who is also Sandy. This proves that there is only one person in NH who favors the SL and opposes "Safe" Boaters. He or she just keeps switching identities. What a conspiracy! We need to alert the Legislature. They've made a grave error! THEY WERE TRICKED!!!

I think its you guys that are all the same person. And that person is a 13 year old locked in his room and circumventing the parental controls his parents thought they put on his computer.

[NoBozo]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Another mystery solved! Another scoundrel unmasked! Or perhaps YS is Warren, who is also Ed, who is also Sandy. This proves that there is only one person in NH who favors the SL and opposes "Safe" Boaters. He or she just keeps switching identities. What a conspiracy! We need to alert the Legislature. They've made a grave error! THEY WERE TRICKED!!!

I think its you guys that are all the same person. And that person is a 13 year old locked in his room and circumventing the parental controls his parents thought they put on his computer.

Hey Moose: You lookin in the mirror again...???? I find that Liberals lookin in the mirror see themselves, and are depressed, and then blame the OTHER side for what they see. Just an observation. NB

BTW: I agree that there is ONE person using multiple screen names here. It's obvious...........BUT... it adds "LIFE" to the forum......NO..?? And every once in awile... "LIFE" is required to keep the forum....lively...... NB

[Yosemite Sam]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

Is Yosemite Sam and Acres Per Second the same person? I find it strange that Y.S. has thanked APS several times and it doesn't fit his profile.

Dr. Seuss has the answer:

Sam I am
I am Sam
I am Sam
Sam I am.
I would not like them here or there.
I would not like them anywhere.
I do not like green eggs and ham.
I do not like them Sam I Am.
Say!
I like green eggs and ham!
I do! I like them, Sam-I-am!

[sunset on the dock]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Warren hahaha Love ya man...... I mean seriously I know hundreds of people that read, but do not post here, and they are hysterically laughing at you, as am I.

Are they same people you met in taverns, arcades, and gas stations, not one of whom was in favor of the speed limit? Ha Ha Ha Ha

Thanks for the laughs.

[Bearislandmoose]

I just keep thinking how scary it is to think that a guy like this has our little kids for 6 hours a day. Imagine if Mommy really knew who she was entrusting little Suzie to? Very disturbing.

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by hazelnut

... Muhuhuhuhahahaha ... ... ... ... ... hahahahahahahah ... ...hahahahahaha ... ... I'm laughing so hard ... ... Oh man I have to wipe the tears now...... wow! ... ...

Wow. Very scary. There are support groups for people who so excessively use emoticons and rant on like this with no particular purpose. For the rest of us, there are discussion groups that talk about you. 16 smilies in one post? ...Muhaha? ...and the way you "use smilies in a wild and un-organized fashion - or in other words, use them in a way that relays a sense of immaturity" perfectly fits the profile of a ***.

Are you really a teacher of little kids or is this just a Halloween prank? Please be honest with me, are you Leo Sandy? He's that teacher who always writes those letters to the LDS...is that really you?

Now, let's get back on topic. Are you guys going to use the same passion to have your Eagle Island (Bourgeoious) NWZ repealed because it too was "put through under the radar"? I've asked this several times and you guys keep changing the topic and using red herring responses to name-call and turn the discussion into one about me. Just answer yes or no.

That Eagle Island NWZ process was IDENTICAL to the BP one in every way, yet not only were you-all behind it because it gave one of your "safe" members a personal quiet zone to enjoy when he was not out in his thunder boat harassing the rest of us, but now you do not want to discuss it because it shows the hypocrisy of your current actions, and shows the lie that "its not about being able to go really fast, we only want these things to be done in the open" really is.

Was the SL "put through under the radar" too? You should use also try this argument when you file for that repeal.

I do not care much about the Barber Pole area. I'm over there maybe five times a year and am usually trolling and going headway speed anyway. Bass boaters sometimes pass me going way too fast, but they are not as threatening as a 10000 pound thunder boat and the operators of bass boats can see over their bows, and are rarely drunk, so I don't worry about them running me over. I hope the BP NWZ goes through, only because it is what the people who live there...the people who know first hand what goes on there day in and day out... want. And because I know that the "its not about being able to go really fast, we only want these things to be done in the open" motto was written by the same phonies who gave us "safe boaters"...and I know who they really are and what they are really about.

Sorry if all this disturbs you, but you reap what you sow.

Now please have that emoticon issue looked into. It might not do any harm in and of itself, but it is a marker for a progressively deteriorating mental state that should be nipped in the bud.

[Bearislandmoose]

Question:

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition (Eagle Island) repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?

Answer:

Originally Posted by gtagrip

What a weird person you are.

Question:

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Is "Safe Boaters" going to try to have that petition (Eagle Island) repealed? Are they moving for a new hearing to set that one right?

Answer:

Originally Posted by Hammond

Is it honorable and OK for him to [B]break his promise and go back on his word not to post anymore

Question:

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

Are you guys going to use the same passion to have your Eagle Island (Bourgeoious) NWZ repealed because it too was "put through under the radar"? I've asked this several times and you guys keep changing the topic and using red herring responses to name-call and turn the discussion into one about me. Just answer yes or no.

Answer:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

And I'll see your true colors
shining through
I see your true colors
and that's why I love you
so don't be afraid to let them show
your true colors
true colors are beautiful
like a rainbow

Need I say more? That favor you guys did for Bourgeious after he gave all that money to your last version of this group, NHRBA, seems to be an embarrassing topic now, no? Working "under the radar" to get a personal NWZ in front of his house, in an area that had never had a problem and was far less of a safety concern than the BP, so that this contributor to the anti-SL group du jour could have peace and quiet when he was not out destroying everyone else's peace and quiet, is starting to look like it was a bad idea. "Let's not let him bring that up. Let's change the topic every time he mentions it. Let's pretend we had nothing to do with that. That was when we called ourselves NHRBA, but we call ourselves SBONH now, so let's deny we even remember doing that. Let's call him names and sing Cindy Lauper songs whenever he mentions it". Nice try.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by winni83

“Obviously, there has been a death among the deities and APS, SOTD, TB, BI, El-C et. al. have been appointed to determine infallibly what is reasonable and civilized for us all, whether it be speed, horsepower, size or type of boat, no wake zones or whatever else annoys or disturbs them from time to time.”

I support those who won't use their boat to kill others.

Originally Posted by VtSteve

You've read many outright lies posted in these various threads, and made many a misstatement of your own.

An opportunity appeared on the previous page in which to address any "misstatements".

However, every one of SBONH-NHRBA's operatives overlooked that opportunity.



As I am for "equal-opportunity" at forums, I am compelled to repeat that previous phrase once again:

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

That favor you guys did for Bourgeious after he gave all that money to your last version of this group, NHRBA, seems to be an embarrassing topic now, no? Working "under the radar" to get a personal NWZ in front of his house, in an area that had never had a problem and was far less of a safety concern than the BP, so that this contributor to the anti-SL group du jour could have peace and quiet when he was not out destroying everyone else's peace and quiet, is starting to look like it was a bad idea. "Let's not let him bring that up. Let's change the topic every time he mentions it. Let's pretend we had nothing to do with that. That was when we called ourselves NHRBA, but we call ourselves SBONH now...

If the below photo is the subject of the "peace and quiet of the personal NWZ at Eagle Island", I don't think we're currently discussing the right "Bourgeoious".

(Or "Bourgeious".)

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Ryan

What happened?

I was asked to come back by one of your gang;

Originally Posted by Hammond

Wonder how .. El Chase ... will try to spin this success.

This was the final straw in a long line of taunts by those who had been unwilling to debate me when I was posting before, but saw my promise to abandon as an opportunity to take shots at me and keep dropping my name. My continued silence would have been risking the wrong impression. Interesting that this guy/gal Hammond (probably a fake name) had never engaged me before, and has not engaged me since. He is apparently the type who likes to kick a guy in handcuffs.

A combination of having lost my elchase password and the desire to start anew led me to create a new screen name..it was simply easier than asking for a new password, and it gave the opportunity to make that covert post and show OCD for who he really is. And I had gotten tired before of being the only person on this forum who was brave enough to post under his real name, and had regretted doing that once people from your side started "investigating" me and going back and forth to "make big wakes" in front of my home.

My problem had been with the editing of my posts by the moderator, the back-breaker being one on this very topic that was edited in a way that turned its intent completely around, causing others to think I was saying the exact opposite of what I had actually written. I did not want to continue posting under such uncertainty. But I was not aware that the moderator was going to start this unmoderated forum, and I feel this is exactly the kind of forum that a debate with the likes of your gang needs. We get to see how vulgar and primitive you all can be, and I get to express my thoughts without waiting three days for them to show up, and then find that they have been changed. I'm enjoying this much more than ever.

I do not consider this to be the forum that I swore out of...the moderated forum. Please know though that I will honor my pledge to remain out of that one...unless you guys taunt there too.

[fatlazyless]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and just look'n at this picture helps the casual observer to maybe understand why performance boating can get into one's blood, and be such a highly addictive fun-time hobby. The photo helps to answer the question: Why do some simply have 'the need for speed?'

[Bearislandmoose]

Originally Posted by Ryan

No, you said you were gone.

Did you read my post?...the same one you quoted?

Anyway...I'm back. And I've decided to stay around. I will stick to my promise to not darken the door of that other forum (the moderated one) anymore. But this one seems much more even-handed, and I don't feel that I have two hands tied behind my back anymore.

So you'll simply have to learn to deal with it. Sorry.

Ed

[ApS]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

As the saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words, and just look'n at this picture helps the casual observer to maybe understand why performance boating can get into one's blood, and be such a highly addictive fun-time hobby. The photo helps to answer the question: Why do some simply have 'the need for speed?'

I can fully understand the "need for speed".

But I bothered to have the medical checkups, the training, the eyesight exams, the experience, the head-gear, the body-gear, the inspections, the organizational excellence, the exacting locations and the overwhelming safety considerations for those speeds—which in most cases didn't see the extreme speeds showcased on Winnipesaukee.

Having "first-hand" observations of extreme speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is never what I had in mind.

[gtagrip]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I can fully understand the "need for speed".

But I bothered to have the medical checkups, the training, the eyesight exams, the experience, the head-gear, the body-gear, the inspections, the organizational excellence, the exacting locations and the overwhelming safety considerations for those speeds—which in most cases didn't see the extreme speeds showcased on Winnipesaukee.

Having "first-hand" observations of extreme speed on Lake Winnipesaukee is never what I had in mind.

Looks to me that the obeserved speed is approx. 45mph.

[RI Swamp Yankee]

Originally Posted by Bearislandmoose

... Speed used to be king on Winni, .....

You must have a short memory. How fast can you go with a 10 HP Johnson on a 12 foot boat?

[OCDACTIVE]

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire
“To promote safety through education and legislation that works”
http://www.SBONH.ORG

State orders hearing on the No Wake Zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” reopened.

Safe Boaters of NH pushes bill to ensure proper notification of future hearings.


For Immediate Release:


The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision establishing the largest no wake zone on Lake Winnipesaukee and has ordered the process reopened.

The decision was made after a petition by residents of the area and Safe Boaters of New Hampshire questioned whether proper notification was given since most of the property owners in the area were unaware of the petition until after a ruling had been made, and whether the original petitioners met the legal requirements to file such a petition.

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee’s “Barber Pole” to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that in the era of dwindling newspaper circulation and greater reliance on the internet and other forms of communication, the methods of legal notification accepted in the past are no longer adequate.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has filed a bill that would address the notification process when a petition to change or restrict the use of New Hampshire’s public waterways is being considered. The bill requires the petitioners to notify the abutters of the area being targeted by certified mail and requires the Department of Safety to post the notification of the petition on the department’s official website at least two weeks prior to the hearing.

Regardless of the outcome of the “Barber Pole” no wake zone issue Safe Boaters of New Hampshire firmly believes everyone affected should have an opportunity to know about the proposed changes prior to decisions being made.

[ronc4424]

No wake ruling reversed after questions raised about process

Staff Report


Monday, November 8, 2010
CONCORD — The state Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision establishing the largest no wake zone on Lake Winnipesaukee and has ordered the process reopened.

The Department of Safety ruled that the legal requirement may not have been met and has ordered the people calling for a no wake zone at Lake Winnipesaukee's "Barber Pole" to show proof of residency. The department also ruled that proper legal notice was given via publication in the only statewide newspaper in New Hampshire.

The decision was made after a petition by residents of the area and Safe Boaters of New Hampshire questioned whether proper notification was given since most of the property owners in the area were unaware of the petition until after a ruling had been made, and whether the original petitioners met the legal requirements to file such a petition.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire believes that in the era of dwindling newspaper circulation and greater reliance on the Internet and other forms of communication, the methods of legal notification accepted in the past are no longer adequate.

Safe Boaters of New Hampshire has filed a bill that would address the notification process when a petition to change or restrict the use of New Hampshire's public waterways is being considered. The bill requires the petitioners to notify the abutters of the area being targeted by certified mail and requires the Department of Safety to post the notification of the petition on the department's official website at least two weeks before the hearing.

Regardless of the outcome of the "Barber Pole" no wake zone issue Safe Boaters of New Hampshire firmly believes everyone affected should have an opportunity to know about the proposed changes before decisions being made.

[Geneva Point]

The Union Leader reported today that the state Department of Safety is re-examining its decision earlier this year to create a no-wake zone in the Barber's Pole area between Tuftonboro Neck and Cow Island. Does anyone have any more deals?

[OCDACTIVE]

Originally Posted by Geneva Point

The Union Leader reported today that the state Department of Safety is re-examining its decision earlier this year to create a no-wake zone in the Barber's Pole area between Tuftonboro Neck and Cow Island. Does anyone have any more deals?

Same press release as you see above.

The petitioners were not able to prove residency or property ownership.

The no wake zone has been overturned and hearing is now closed.

It is as if it never happened.

[BroadHopper]

I have mentioned before that the abbuters were upset over the ruling. Yet BIM beg to differ and disputed my claim.

[hazelnut]

The "real residents" of the area were 90% against the NWZ. We circulated a petition and out of the roughly 30 properties only 2 or 3 were in favor of the NWZ. Ironically these were the attendants of the original hearing.

This was a case of a couple of property owners who got caught with their hands in the cookie jar. They tried to sneak a hearing in and they almost got away with it. Back in the summer on the weekend of the original hearing one family told some people they were just having a family reunion when they were asked why they were at the house for the weekend. These are the Squirrel Island people that rent the house out all summer. They never mentioned to us that they were actually all there to attend a hearing on the NWZ.

The whole situation turns my stomach that these slimy people would try to pull such a sleazy move. I was more ticked off at the process than anything else. As I have said in the past the NWZ would have had some benefits for me personally. I win either way. Thank you SBONH for your support and for shining a light on situations like this where a select few try to dictate the use of a public resource.

[VtSteve]

Who owns this Squirrel Island? Maybe a poster here?

It's always nice when something is stopped for the right reasons. It seems that many people now want to pass legislation in the dark of night, and let as few people know about it as possible. Oh well, there are lots of devious people out there with nothing better to do. They hate the fact that somewhere out there, someone might be having a good time

Well kudos to those that sent them back to their dark caves. Always nice when people are thoughtful.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by VtSteve

Who owns this Squirrel Island? Maybe a poster here?

It's always nice when something is stopped for the right reasons. It seems that many people now want to pass legislation in the dark of night, and let as few people know about it as possible. Oh well, there are lots of devious people out there with nothing better to do. They hate the fact that somewhere out there, someone might be having a good time

Well kudos to those that sent them back to their dark caves. Always nice when people are thoughtful.

I think it's becoming standing room only in these caves! More to follow, that's for sure.
Happy Veteran's Day

[Turtle Boy]

Somehow I think SBONH's presence in this controversy will not help with their long term plans and agenda and they will regret their involvement. This article appears in today's Laconia Daily Sun.

Thanks to "safe" boaters, full throttle through Barber Pole is OK
Nov 17, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

The New Hampshire Department of Safety has reversed its earlier decision that had established a No Wake Zone in the narrow and often busy Barber's Pole channel of Lake Winnipesaukee, at the request of a group of boaters headed by a member of a performance boating club calling itself the "Active Thunder Cult".

The Department of Safety makes this reversal based on a technicality raised by this boating group, despite having earlier found that without the no-wake designation, present law "does not provide adequate safety" and that "No Wake speed along this route within Lake Winnipesaukee will improve public safety; maintenance of residential, recreational, and scenic values; variety of uses; and, environment and water quality."

Using the moniker "Safe Boaters of New Hampshire", the boating group, whose founder has stated a primary mission of having Lake Winnipesaukee's boating speed limit repealed, has arranged so that most boaters may again travel full throttle through the narrow 2-way channel, even after the Department of Safety had determined that "There is not sufficient availability and practicality of enforcement" to ensure safety in the channel absent no-wake speed limitations.

Ed Chase

Meredith

[NoRegrets]

Some look for the ugly in every situation. Amazing!

[rockythedog]

Turtle Boy, is that an article written by an unbiased journalist or the ravings of some wack-job in a letter to the editor? Do you even know the difference?

[ishoot308]

Originally Posted by rockythedog

Turtle Boy, is that an article written by an unbiased journalist or the ravings of some wack-job in a letter to the editor? Do you even know the difference?

I would go with curtain # 2

Dan

[Turtle Boy]

For your reading pleasure, from today's LDS:

Letters
State has changed no-wake-zones to anything goes a number of times
Nov 18, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Mr. Chase should be nominated for Safety Commissioner or perhaps Hearings Supervisor due to the fact that the present office holders are opening a can of worms that could go back as much as 50 plus years. They seem to think they can change their minds when someone squawks that they didn't have time to read the hearing notices in the only statewide newspaper and this malarkey about only residents can sign petitions but anybody in the entire state can file appeals against rulings is a drastic mis-interpretation.

Many lake users went to the appeals hearing in Tuftonboro but weren't allowed to speak unless we were appellants and yet we were told that we all own Lake Winnipesaukee. Something is drastically wrong with this picture. As a boater who uses the "Barber Pole" passage on occasion, I believe someone should get out the measuring stick; the channel is not wide enough to allow two vessels going in opposite, or the same, ways the 450-foot clearance to allow speeds up to 45-mph by the current law, nor does it allow PWC's the 600 foot clearance to exceed headway speeds. However we were not allowed to bring this information forward during the appeals hearing. There are many areas on the lake that don't allow these clearances and yet the Safety Department has changed them from "No-Wake-Zones" to do what ever you please zones a number of times. One that comes to mind is the passage in Glendale between Pig Island and Locke Island that for many years was a "No-Wake-Zone", at least from 1969 through the late 1970s and then one year it did not appear on the chart due to a typographical error so the Marine Patrol removed the NWZ indicators and now boats literally fly through the area defying the 150 foot separation requirement as well as the need to slow to headway speed. This area is just around the corner from Marine Patrol Headquarters.

We might ask who verified the signatures for residency that were supplied, by NH Recreational Boaters Association, on petitions for the Eagle Island NWZ that was put into place a year or three ago ? And why aren't Center Harbor and Wolfeboro bays as well protected with NWZ's as are Alton and Meredith bays ? If one of the Department of Safety responsibilities is to provide for the safety of all users of Lake Winnipesaukee when and how, other than college kids riding around in patrol boats, don't they address these issues rather than waiting for the populace to request some actions that are so glaringly obvious ?

Bill Bertholdt

[VtSteve]

It's called being Above Board. I would think that residents and property owners have the right to at least know what's going on behind their backs. I also find it very disingenuous for some to suggest (continually), that in this particular area of the lake, boaters do whatever they choose. You are not only inferring that the SL law and the Safe Passage rules are not working, but you're narrowing it down to this one area. All that after saying how wonderful the lake has been, and how safe it is, after the SL law's passage. Kind of a spin no?

As was clearly evident from the multitude of posts here, residents and other boaters of the BP area were studying the facts of the NWZ issue, and also debating it's pros and cons. That's the way things get done in civilized society. Sometimes it works well, other times maybe not so well. But it's out in the open, and people get their input. There were some pretty good suggestions and discussions overall. Sorry to see some people don't like open discussions.

I'd also like to add that SBONH, as they have stated many times, took no stance on the NWZ issue. They preferred to leave the discussion and debate up to the people it would impact the most. In other words, SBONH did not formulate a knee-jerk response. Good form. I say judge them for what they do, not by what people that use fictitious names in newspapers say.

[Wolfeboro_Baja]

Regarding ALL the discussion that's been had in this thread and the two letters to the editor posted here, how can the BP NWZ not be wide enough for two boats to pass each other while maintaining the minimum 150' between both crafts and shore? Using Google Earth, I measured the width of that area; the minimum width I found, shore to shore, was 825 ft while other areas were greater than 900 ft. Two boats passing each other would need an absolute minimum of 450' to allow for distances between themselves and shore on either side. Even if you allow 500', that STILL leaves 300'+ to maintain distance from other boats and shore. What am I missing when so many people are saying it's too narrow?!?!?

Just for reference, the Eagle Island NWZ measured at 710' at it's narrowest, also using Google Earth. I can't tell you how many boats I've seen blowing through this one on plane; I've even caught the Doris E (or Sophie C, I don't remember which) buzzing through without slowing down!

Granted, I don't know how accurate (or inaccurate) Google Earth is when it comes to measuring but unless someone has strung a tape measure across or used surveying instruments, it's close enough for me!

[VtSteve]

You're not missing anything. Except for this one area on the lake, every-thing's just peachy

[gtagrip]

Why is it that all are in agreement with what SBONH exposed this scam except 3 or 4 people in this forum. They tried to sneak a NWZ through the process and got called on it. I guess it's only the sneaks in this forum that are upset about it.

[VtSteve]

I like those odds actually

The real people without an agenda were exposed to what those few folks stand for. Hazelnut and others sought to be inclusionary, and not make reactionary statements pro or con on this issue. HN was also very concerned that the people that lived there were not informed. Pretty much period.

I had some people (nobody that's posted on the NWZ threads), ask me privately what I thought of people gushing with sheer delight over the SL issue and how well it's worked, yet when speaking of the BP area, it seems like mass chaos and ultra high speed. I did not once state the obvious.

They figured it out themselves. The bottom line is this. As a group, there can, and will be, disagreements over many things. But the vast majority of us try to discuss things out in the open, whether we agree with one side or the other. In this case, there were mixed results over actual NWZ. But there were only the same few that didn't think the methods or means used were pretty sneaky.

So some folks decided it was time to let everyone in on this little secret. I think the majority of people in this forum got a real eye-opener from these disclosures.

[Seaplane Pilot]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

For your reading pleasure, from today's LDS:

Letters
State has changed no-wake-zones to anything goes a number of times
Nov 18, 2010 12:00 am
To the editor,

Mr. Chase should be nominated for Safety Commissioner or perhaps Hearings Supervisor due to the fact that the present office holders are opening a can of worms that could go back as much as 50 plus years. They seem to think they can change their minds when someone squawks that they didn't have time to read the hearing notices in the only statewide newspaper and this malarkey about only residents can sign petitions but anybody in the entire state can file appeals against rulings is a drastic mis-interpretation.

Many lake users went to the appeals hearing in Tuftonboro but weren't allowed to speak unless we were appellants and yet we were told that we all own Lake Winnipesaukee. Something is drastically wrong with this picture. As a boater who uses the "Barber Pole" passage on occasion, I believe someone should get out the measuring stick; the channel is not wide enough to allow two vessels going in opposite, or the same, ways the 450-foot clearance to allow speeds up to 45-mph by the current law, nor does it allow PWC's the 600 foot clearance to exceed headway speeds. However we were not allowed to bring this information forward during the appeals hearing. There are many areas on the lake that don't allow these clearances and yet the Safety Department has changed them from "No-Wake-Zones" to do what ever you please zones a number of times. One that comes to mind is the passage in Glendale between Pig Island and Locke Island that for many years was a "No-Wake-Zone", at least from 1969 through the late 1970s and then one year it did not appear on the chart due to a typographical error so the Marine Patrol removed the NWZ indicators and now boats literally fly through the area defying the 150 foot separation requirement as well as the need to slow to headway speed. This area is just around the corner from Marine Patrol Headquarters.

We might ask who verified the signatures for residency that were supplied, by NH Recreational Boaters Association, on petitions for the Eagle Island NWZ that was put into place a year or three ago ? And why aren't Center Harbor and Wolfeboro bays as well protected with NWZ's as are Alton and Meredith bays ? If one of the Department of Safety responsibilities is to provide for the safety of all users of Lake Winnipesaukee when and how, other than college kids riding around in patrol boats, don't they address these issues rather than waiting for the populace to request some actions that are so glaringly obvious ?

Bill Bertholdt

Perhaps he should also take over Fish & Game Department. Then he could restrict or outlaw hunting as well, seeing how "dangerous" this activity really is. Someone please pass the Rolaids.....I'm ready to puke.

[BroadHopper]

Where's the Barber's Pole? What happened to it? Did the NWZ supporters hold it for ransom?

[jmen24]

It's like playing tag on the playground with the kids that only want to play if they can control the rules and make it so they always have a safe zone within arms reach, but it is only for them.

Pretty soon they are talking to themselves in the corner of the playground, shouting random comments at others if they walk by to close.

The problem is those kids have grown up to be equally as annoying as adults and they have not changed a bit. Sad really.

Get involved and stay involved, it is your right and should be taken seriously. I have a feeling that we are going to start hearing more and more about folks standing up to the weak minded folks that want the rules spun in their favor. Secretly that is, wouldn't want to deal with an opposing view, that is NOT FAAAIIIIRRRR.

[VtSteve]

Well said Jmen. There are those that know the only way they can get their way is by cheating or under cover of darkness. They really don't like it when you turn the spotlight on them. I like the fact that so many turned on their spotlights all at once.

They said NOT FAAAIIIIRRRR, then called people nasty names and wrote nasty little letters. Then they go back into the corner. Perhaps they will learn how not to combine their conflicting fabrications in the same thread.

[gtagrip]

Summer 2009 = lake wide Shang-gri-la as many posted it was the best
summer ever.

Summer 2010 = High speed craziness in the Barber's Pole area and the 150'
rule is violated constantly.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[Turtle Boy]

Originally Posted by gtagrip

Why is it that all are in agreement with what SBONH exposed this scam except 3 or 4 people in this forum.

Why is it that the GFBL crowd feels/says they are the oppressed majority when most people polled in NH and a majority of our state legislature were in favor of a SL?

Why is it that some people feel jeans and sweatshirts are appropriate attire when appearing before a legislative body in Concord?

.......The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.........


I suspect the people in the BP will indeed get their NWZ. Having spoken with some of the people involved, it seems that in previous attempts virtually everyone on the mainland side of the BP, people on Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people along the BP shore of Cow Is. including many of HN's neighbors and +/-? even the former owner of his house signed in favor of the NWZ. This varies significantly with HN's version of only 3 people in the BP being in favor. I think some of the people on this forum need to read the previously printed (on this forum) emails to the DOS by residents of the BP as to why they felt the NWZ was needed. The DOS agreed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOS eventually institute this NWZ by administrative rule, similar to how a SL was instituted on Squam. People are indeed starting to take back the lake from a crowd hanging in the shadows who claim they are a majority but are clearly not.

[fatlazyless]

"New Hampshire's procedure for declaring a 'no wake' zone under scrutiny after reversal of 'Barber Pole' decision" is the title of a front page article in today's Nov 20 www.laconiadailysun.com

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by fatlazyless

"New Hampshire's procedure for declaring a 'no wake' zone under scrutiny after reversal of 'Barber Pole' decision" is the title of a front page article in today's Nov 20 www.laconiadailysun.com

You mean this isn't an anonymous op-ed piece written under an alias riddled with lies and spin, but an actual article, complete with facts and stuff?

Get out!

[fatlazyless]

Michael Kitch, a reporter for the LaDaSun wrote it, and he writes lots of articles or reports on local town meetings, and in learning journalism, journalism students try to learn the difference between reporting and editorializing, if such a thing is even possible.

To read it like a printed paper newspaper, go to "new LaDaSun format" last message - message #16 for a working link which turns the LaDaSun back into its' old style.

[Yankee]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Why is it that the GFBL crowd feels/says they are the oppressed majority when most people polled in NH and a majority of our state legislature were in favor of a SL?

Why is it that some people feel jeans and sweatshirts are appropriate attire when appearing before a legislative body in Concord?

.......The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.........


I suspect the people in the BP will indeed get their NWZ. Having spoken with some of the people involved, it seems that in previous attempts virtually everyone on the mainland side of the BP, people on Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people along the BP shore of Cow Is. including many of HN's neighbors and +/-? even the former owner of his house signed in favor of the NWZ. This varies significantly with HN's version of only 3 people in the BP being in favor. I think some of the people on this forum need to read the previously printed (on this forum) emails to the DOS by residents of the BP as to why they felt the NWZ was needed. The DOS agreed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOS eventually institute this NWZ by administrative rule, similar to how a SL was instituted on Squam. People are indeed starting to take back the lake from a crowd hanging in the shadows who claim they are a majority but are clearly not.

Why is it that you and others of your ilk conveniently fail to admit that SBONH has only questioned the legality of the process regarding the establishment of the BP NWZ the rather than the result? If indeed "virtually" all (who can claim legal residency--a fact that you conveniently leave out!) in the area of the BP are in favor of a NWZ, then let them participate in and abide with the decision of the Tuftonboro authorities.

The fact that the BP NWZ was not established in a manner consisitent with the rules and regulations of the town of Tuftonboro apparently does not matter to you as long as the ends justify the means. The fact that you remain silent on the surrepticious, disingenuous, and unscrupulous manner in which the BP NWZ was initially established is abhorring.

It is occasions such as this that are the basis for the contempt and loathing that NH natives and residents express towards individuals such as you, as I am doing now.

[VtSteve]

You have them pegged pretty well Yankee. They lurk, they smirk, they slither around behind people's backs to get their dirty deeds done. They avoid any and all discussion of facts.

Everyone knows the persona that has stated, many times, that Winni was an absolute boater's paradise last year and this year. He said it was because of the SL. Out of the blue, after slithering around behind people's backs, they come up with a NWZ at the BP.

This very same person states (as they all do now), that it's Full Throttle and anything goes in that area. Nobody's heard that before, not until after the NWZ issue blew up in their collective faces.

So how can it be true that everything's ok but the BP area is crazy fast? Well it can't be. They know that, so when pressed, they make a few snarky comments directed at the MP about lack of enforcement and move on.

The only thing dangerous about this little group of nasty men is their deranged ideas. One of them even stated a preference for having the lake be a large NWZ, as he enjoys that boating the best. But once they found out that the people they hate the most might even discuss civilly the NWZ issue, they got even madder. They had to make it appear that these people drove boats at 200 mph through there. In fact, some suggested it Might be a good idea, and wanted to bring everyone in on it.

The gang of grumpy old men would have nothing to do with this. They slithered behind everyone's backs and passed a ridiculous law before everyone woke up. Fact si, they are pathological, never, ever to be trusted. Their motives are about an insincere as any I've head or read about. They'd make DC politicians blush. The only thing they're upset about is that they were found out.

If you want to really tick them off and send them packing, just keep spreading the truth.

[hazelnut]

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

Why is it that the GFBL crowd feels/says they are the oppressed majority when most people polled in NH and a majority of our state legislature were in favor of a SL?

Why is it that some people feel jeans and sweatshirts are appropriate attire when appearing before a legislative body in Concord?

.......The answer my friend is blowin' in the wind.........


I suspect the people in the BP will indeed get their NWZ. Having spoken with some of the people involved, it seems that in previous attempts virtually everyone on the mainland side of the BP, people on Squirrel and Little Birch Islands, and many people along the BP shore of Cow Is. including many of HN's neighbors and +/-? even the former owner of his house signed in favor of the NWZ. This varies significantly with HN's version of only 3 people in the BP being in favor. I think some of the people on this forum need to read the previously printed (on this forum) emails to the DOS by residents of the BP as to why they felt the NWZ was needed. The DOS agreed. I wouldn't be surprised to see the DOS eventually institute this NWZ by administrative rule, similar to how a SL was instituted on Squam. People are indeed starting to take back the lake from a crowd hanging in the shadows who claim they are a majority but are clearly not.

I've never in my life read bigger LIES in a post. This entire post is a lie. The former owner of my house is dead. So unless you dug him up and used your hand to guide his signature you are telling lies.


Now for some levity:

Enjoy this one TB:

http://www2.laconiadailysun.com/story/barber-pole

New Hampshire's procedure for declaring a 'no wake' zone under scrutiny after 'Barber Pole' decision
By Michael Kitch
Nov 20, 2010 12:00 am

TUFTONBORO — The New Hampshire Department of Safety last week rescinded its decision declaring the Barber's Pole, the passage between Cow Island and the mainland, a "no wake zone" after representatives of Safe Boater of New Hampshire successfully challenged the legitimacy of the petition prompting the initial declaration.

State law (RSA 270:12) prescribes the procedure by which the commissioner of safety may place operating restrictions, including limits on the maximum horsepower or speed of boats, on lakes, ponds and rivers. The statute provides that at least 25 residents or property owners of each municipality bordering the water body may petition the commissioner, who after holding a public hearing may adopt rules to impose restrictions found to serve the public interest. Altogether restrictions have been imposed on more than 50 lakes and ponds, all identified in state law (RSA-270:76-132), through this process.

In May, the commissioner received a petition to impose a "no wake zone" on the so-called Barber's Pole strait. A hearing was held on July 21 and on July 30 Commissioner of Safety John Barthelmes issued an order declaring Barber's Pole, a stretch of water about twice the length of the Weirs Channel, a "no wake zone."

Many property owners on both Cow Island and the mainland were stunned and surprised by the decision, since they were not aware that a petition had been filed and a public hearing held. Noting the relatively low volume of boat traffic and number of boating mishaps, they questioned the need for a 'no wake zone," which the Marine Patrol has rejected in the past. They claimed that islanders who commute daily and weekly would be adversely affected by the "no wake zone," which one person said stretched the time to traverse the channel to 17 minutes.

Eleven residents, including Scott Verdock, the president, and Bob Flannery, the political director, of Safe Boaters of New Hampshire, appealed to reopen the hearing, claiming that the Department of Safety failed to properly notice the public hearing and the petitioners failed to qualify as either residents or property owners of Tuftonboro.

Verdonck stressed yesterday that his organization, which formed to oppose legislation setting speed limits on Lake Winnipesaukee, was neither for or against the "no wake zone." Instead, he said that his membership was troubled that interested parties were not informed that a change in the operating protocols on the lake was being contemplated and that the credentials of the petitioners were apparently not verified.

"One of our members polled 58 residents of Barber's Poll and found only two who favored a 'no wake zone,'" Verdonck said. "We took no position either way. But, changes in the use of public waters should not be done under a shroud of secrecy. All the residents should be given an opportunity to participate in the decision."

The appeal was heard on October 1. The commissioner ruled that by posting a legal notice announcing the public hearing in the N.H. Union-Leader, a newspaper circulated throughout the state, the department met its obligation to provide public notification. He noted that the notice should not only be provided to residents or property owners but to all residents of the state, which has traditionaly be done by placing a notice in a statewide newspaper.

Verdonck disagrees and has asked Representative John Hikel (R-Goffstown) to file legislation requiring the petitioners to notify all abutters of the forthcoming hearing by certified mail. The process, he said, is akin to the procedure followed by local planning boards and by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services when chemical herbicides are applied to treat milfoil in lakes and ponds.

However, the commissioner found that the original petitioners failed to provide adequate proof that the signatories were either legal residents or property owners of Tuftonboro. Barthelmes instructed the petitioners to provide him with the necessary documentation within 30 days. According to Verdonck, they have failed to do so.

[hazelnut]

Furthermore all of the residents in the Barbers Pole channel on Cow Island OPPOSED THE NWZ. FACT not OPINION. These are my friends and my neighbors and many of them signed the petition opposed the NWZ. FACT not OPINION Sorry TB. FYI- The number of houses that directly abut the channel on the Cow Island side are 7 total homes one vacant lot with a dock.