Lt. Dunleavy, NHMP, responds....

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Skip

"...Thank you Tim for standing up and giving another side to this story..."

Yup. Especially when he contradicts his boss, the NH Marine Patrol Director:

"..David Barrett, the director of the Marine Patrol, has said radar guns can detect speeding boats only from certain angles. And only about 15 percent of boats on the lakes drive faster than 50 or 55 mph, he said..."

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Yup. Especially when he contradicts his boss, the NH Marine Patrol Director:

A quotation from before the data was taken APS, why didn't you point that out???????? another little fact left out to support your statements............

Originally Posted by Islander

Once again there is no denial in that statement. Did he leave it out by mistake. Or is the statement carefully crafted to sound like a denial, but not BE a denial.

Quite frankly I think this statement raises questions and suspicions while answering none.

Ok, who exactly is paranoid???????? Looks like a clear case of paranoia in Islander's quote above....

[Islander]

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Islander

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

What part of the above statement don't you get?? He is stating clearly that if you really doubt the results and feel Barrett's influence made his people produce what he wanted them to find then do your own testing and prove the results wrong. Do you need it spelled out any clearer than that???

His approach was a bit more polite than to simply say to the public that they are idiots if they think the data was cooked. As a public official I think his tact in this matter was on target.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by codeman671

"If you truly believe that Director Barrett has so much influence over his roughly 100 employees that they would produce the statistics he desired, I respectfully suggest that you conduct some speed sampling of your own."

What part of the above statement don't you get?? He is stating clearly that if you really doubt the results and feel Barrett's influence made his people produce what he wanted them to find then do your own testing and prove the results wrong. Do you need it spelled out any clearer than that???

His approach was a bit more polite than to simply say to the public that they are idiots if they think the data was cooked. As a public official I think his tact in this matter was on target.

Yes, it needs to be spelled out clearer than that.

I believe Lt. Dunleavy intended to deny the charges made in the article, but he never did. He really needs to clarify the situation and make a clear statement.

There is no denial in what you have quoted, and no denial in his statement.

[SIKSUKR]

This is just incredible.

[Skip]

Thank you Bear Islander, Islander and Aps. I have been looking during this debate for good examples of logical fallacy ("do you still beat your wife"), something that has run rampant through this debate. Your responses to Lt. Dunleavy's comments serve as an excellent example.

For those of you that would like to learn more, please visit this Wikipedia LINK for an excellent explanation.

And if anyone would like to ask Tim about his comments, instead of attempting to assign unknown motives to what appears to me to be a pretty clear statement, simply tear yourselves away from the keyboard and give him a call at 603-293-2037 or e-mail him at TDUNLEAVY@SAFETY.STATE.NH.US

I am sure he would appreciate the opportunity to address and respond to your concerns directly.

Yeah, I know. Its much more fun for some to assign sinister motives to his comments anonymously, but can we all be adults here for once an avail us of the opportunity to contact the source directly and attempt to get our answers before speculating any further?

One can only hope....

[kjbathe]

I think some folks are working overtime to try and parse the Lieutenants words or suggest that the lack of a preferred word or denial means the opposite must be true.

I read his article and when taken as a whole -- not selectively quoted or parsed -- his point should be abundantly clear: The data and the stats are what they are, and both sides can interpret them in ways that favor their own preferences. We shouldn't start questioning the character of people just because we don't like the stats they've collected.

And for purposes of full disclosure, I don't care if we have a speed limit or not. I think the proposed speed limits are certainly fair enough and consistent with what most people would find reasonable in terms of how fast they should be operating on the big lake. But I also think it's a small portion of the overall boating public that is operating beyond what is reasonable. When you combine that small portion with the likelihood that enforcement will be in place to record or ticket the offenders, I don't think we ultimately affect any real change in behavior. After all, we're still the same people that blow by the 55 MPH speed limit sign doing 75 until we see the cruiser up ahead. It will be no different on the lake.

[Bear Islander]

I made it clear that I believe it was his intent to deny the charges.

Skip you said "appears to me to be a pretty clear statement". And I agree it certainly has that appearance, and I think that was his intent. However the appearance of a denial is not a denial.

In responding to Jack Fatello's accusations Lt. Dunleavy should have included some simple statements like "Director Barrett never pressured his officers" or "We never fudged the data". To have left these out raises questions and accomplishes the opposite of what he was trying to achieve.

I do believe this was a simple omission on his part.

I will send him an email.

[WeirsBeachBoater]

(Jack Fatello) could this be a pen name? I think forum members will remember "Fat Jack", seems a little close don't you think. So who is really playing games here, the SL proponents or the opponents? Conspiracy?

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous! Hopefully the upper chamber will see this for what it is.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

(Jack Fatello) could this be a pen name? I think forum members will remember "Fat Jack", seems a little close don't you think. So who is really playing games here, the SL proponents or the opponents? Conspiracy?

This whole thing is beyond ridiculous! Hopefully the upper chamber will see this for what it is.

Funny you should mention that, I was thinking of Fat Jack fondly last night as I was going through some old posts. Makes perfect sense!

A Whitepages search turned up a J A Fatello in Laconia, although it looks to be a Jo Ann Fatello, a 65 year old woman.

[Dick]

Fatello's article and Representative Pilliod's (sponsor of HB 847) testimony in front of the full House of Representatives essentially said the same thing, i.e., the reason that the MP boat speed survey data is not valid is because (1) the boating public knew in advance where the radar surveys were going to be conducted and therefore made sure that they slowed down in those areas, and (2) when boaters saw the "Marine Patrol" markings on the boat and an officer holding a radar gun on them, that the boater would naturally slow down.

Now here are the FACTS: First, there were a total of 9 different areas where the MP clocked boats with two different types of radar. Of the 9 areas, only 2 were known to the boating public. Second, we all know that (among several factors) radar is only accurate when the target watercraft is traveling either directly toward or directly away from the MP vessel. If the MP boat's bow is facing in the direction of the target boat, there is no way to see the "Marine Patrol" lettering on the side of the vessel. Third, the MP used several unmarked boats during the survey -- including some recreational boats.

There was no way to challenge Representative Pilliod's statements that he gave in front of the full House of Represedntatives because he said that he would not take any questions "for the sake of saving time". How many House Reps therefore accepted his statements as being factually true? They voted with bum information.

As for Fatello's article . . . he stated that the MP survey data proved that speed limits work to slow everyone down. The reality is (with or without any arbitrary blanket speed limit) that whenever we are traveling down the lake, at any speed, the vast majority of us will slow down if we see another watercraft directly in front of us (whether an MP boat or not). At the same time we will start veering off to starboard. This is called common sense and the "rules of the road" on the water. It is operating our watercraft in a reasonable manner according to the prevailing conditions. This is the way it is in most states and has worked very well for us in NH for all these years . . . and will continue to serve us very well.

Fatello's article (or whatever his/her name really is) goes on to speculate that the MP professionals cooked the data to suit the wishes of the Director of the Div. of Water Safety. That is a shameful accusation and an insult to the professional officers in the Marine Patrol.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dick

Fatello's article and Representative Pilliod's (sponsor of HB 847) testimony in front of the full House of Representatives essentially said the same thing, i.e., the reason that the MP boat speed survey data is not valid is because (1) the boating public knew in advance where the radar surveys were going to be conducted and therefore made sure that they slowed down in those areas, and (2) when boaters saw the "Marine Patrol" markings on the boat and an officer holding a radar gun on them, that the boater would naturally slow down.

Now here are the FACTS: First, there were a total of 9 different areas where the MP clocked boats with two different types of radar. Of the 9 areas, only 2 were known to the boating public. Second, we all know that (among several factors) radar is only accurate when the target watercraft is traveling either directly toward or directly away from the MP vessel. If the MP boat's bow is facing in the direction of the target boat, there is no way to see the "Marine Patrol" lettering on the side of the vessel. Third, the MP used several unmarked boats during the survey -- including some recreational boats.

There was no way to challenge Representative Pilliod's statements that he gave in front of the full House of Represedntatives because he said that he would not take any questions "for the sake of saving time". How many House Reps therefore accepted his statements as being factually true? They voted with bum information.

As for Fatello's article . . . he stated that the MP survey data proved that speed limits work to slow everyone down. The reality is (with or without any arbitrary blanket speed limit) that whenever we are traveling down the lake, at any speed, the vast majority of us will slow down if we see another watercraft directly in front of us (whether an MP boat or not). At the same time we will start veering off to starboard. This is called common sense and the "rules of the road" on the water. It is operating our watercraft in a reasonable manner according to the prevailing conditions. This is the way it is in most states and has worked very well for us in NH for all these years . . . and will continue to serve us very well.

Fatello's article (or whatever his/her name really is) goes on to speculate that the MP professionals cooked the data to suit the wishes of the Director of the Div. of Water Safety. That is a shameful accusation and an insult to the professional officers in the Marine Patrol.

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet.

Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study. It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did.

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used? Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet.

You can confirm these FACTS for yourself by asking the MP officers themselves who actually conducted the surveys. You can speak directly with their supervisors as well. That's what I did. You might want to start with the MP officer whose name appears on this original thread. He is not hard to find.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Dick

You can confirm these FACTS for yourself by asking the MP officers themselves who actually conducted the surveys. You can speak directly with their supervisors as well. That's what I did. You might want to start with the MP officer whose name appears on this original thread. He is not hard to find.

I have contacted him and requested the data. A comparison of the speeds recorded in marked and unmarked boats could be very illuminating.

If for instance if unmarked boats took 10% of the readings but recorded 90% of the higher speeds, that would tell quite a bit.

Were you given any facts along those lines?

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have contacted him and requested the data. A comparison of the speeds recorded in marked and unmarked boats could be very illuminating.

If for instance if unmarked boats took 10% of the readings but recorded 90% of the higher speeds, that would tell quite a bit.

Were you given any facts along those lines?

What would that tell????? If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter. One of the beauties of statistical sampling is that if an event exists, especially to the degree the SL crowd portrays, then it would be nearly impossible for said event not to be present in the sample..........

[Bear Islander]

If the speeds recorded in the unmarked boats were higher than in the marked boats, it would support the premise that boats go slower when the MP is in sight. It would indicate that only the speeds recorded by the unmarked boats were untainted.

But until we have data we don't know a thing. It might only have been one unmarked boat on a rainy day. Or Dick is pulling a fast one and there were no unmarked boats.

The question of unmarked boats has been talk about since day one. If they existed why has it taken so long to tell us. And why were they not mentioned in the study report.

Once again an assertion that raises more questions than it answers.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

If the speeds recorded in the unmarked boats were higher than in the marked boats, it would support the premise that boats go slower when the MP is in sight. It would indicate that only the speeds recorded by the unmarked boats were untainted.

But until we have data we don't know a thing. It might only have been one unmarked boat on a rainy day. Or Dick is pulling a fast one and there were no unmarked boats.

The question of unmarked boats has been talk about since day one. If they existed why has it taken so long to tell us. And why were they not mentioned in the study report.

Once again an assertion that raises more questions than it answers.

Once again, I quote myself: "If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter."

So if I understand your position, these scary, loud, ultrafast boats, that are unable to avoid "close calls" with a prolific kayaker, are so abundant that island folk see them all the time, are so prevalent that women and children are afraid to venture out on the lake, these speeding boats suddenly become so competent that they are able to evade both marked and unmarked speed traps or even just marked boats? I don't think so............

[Dick]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data . . ."

Did you read the Fatello article? He and many others who support inflicting this new law on us believe the data was biased/cooked. The data does not support their position and so there must be something wrong with the data and the MP personnel who conducted the surveys.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

First if you want to represent things as FACTS, you need to explain how you know them. For instance where did you get the information that unmarked boats were used?[ Are you a MP officer? Things are not facts because they are anonymously posted on the internet.

Second I don't think anyone believes that Marine Patrol Officers cooked the data, I sure don't. The cooking part is the way the study was designed and in the purpose of the study. It was, in my opinion, designed to delay enactment of HB847, and it did.

That will be one long email...

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

In responding to Jack Fatello's accusations Lt. Dunleavy should have included some simple statements like "Director Barrett never pressured his officers" or "We never fudged the data". To have left these out raises questions and accomplishes the opposite of what he was trying to achieve.

I do believe this was a simple omission on his part.

I will send him an email.

It would seem a lot easier to dial 603-293-2037...

P.S.- Another NH advantage - not necessary to dial the area code if in the state...

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Islander

Instead of questioning my post, will you please show us exactly where he denies that the data was fudged. He also never says Barrett didn't have them fudge the data. THERE IS NO DENIAL!

The scary part is how effective this tripe is with the NH house. Everything has to be spelled out in clear detail to argue against the speed limit, yet you people speak in riddle, hyperbole, use data from other states hundreds of miles away, use estimates as fact, incite fear and lie ( quote Evenstar "Look, we're not all lying", translation: some SL proponents lie). You readily disrespect the MP as liars and data fudgers, dragging their reputations through the mud so you can get your way, like a two year old.

I'll tell you something, had the MP data shown a problem with speeding, I would have accepted it and not trashed the messenger as you have. You should be ashamed.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

...you people speak in riddle, hyperbole, use data from other states hundreds of miles away, use estimates as fact, incite fear and lie ( quote Evenstar "Look, we're not all lying", translation: some SL proponents lie).

ITD, please stop twisting everything that I post. In your own post you're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

As I have already posted in another thread when you tried to use this same thing against me: "I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill."

I have never done anything but been totally honest in all of my posts. And now you have the nerve to try to use my honesty against me, by twisting my words into a completely distorted "translation", suggesting that I'm saying something that I didn't. For your information, due to my head injury, I do not even have the ability to lie. How low will you stoop in trying to discredit me?

Originally Posted by ITD

If there is mayhem and the wild west and enough high speed boats for Evenstar to have "close encounters" on the few times she has been on Lake Winnipesaukee, then I would expect to see the problem in ten percent of the readings or in the other ninety percent for that matter. One of the beauties of statistical sampling is that if an event exists, especially to the degree the SL crowd portrays, then it would be nearly impossible for said event not to be present in the sample..........

I have experienced more than one highspeed powerboat who violated my 150 foot zone on Winni, because they were apparently going to fast to notice me in time to stay further away.

The fact that I have had these dangerous encounters on a lake that I have not spent a great deal of time on (compared to other large NH lakes), shows me that speed is a much larger problem on Winni than what is being protrayed on by the anti-speed limit people on this forum. If I had not had these close encounters on Winni, I would have returned to the lake much more often, because I happen to love this lake. And it's not much fun to go to a lake alone, because none of my paddling friends are willing to spend time there - because of "the speeds of the powerboats" (their reasons, not mine).

I have also shown, from their own report, that the MP only recorded the speeds of boats for less than 2% of the daylight hours during the 11 weeks that they collected data. Areas A and B were the primary test zones (which is clear in the report), and these primary test zones were the two that boaters knew about. What pecentage of boats were recording in areas A and B? How many boats were were clocked on the Broads? This was clearly not a fair reflection of the speeds of the entire lake.

I don't feel that the MP "fudged" any of the data - but that the study was not done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

ITD, please stop twisting everything that I post. In your own post you're doing exactly what you are accusing others of doing.

As I have already posted in another thread when you tried to use this same thing against me: "I posted "we are not all lying", because I can't be certain that no one has lied about this. All I can be 100% certain about is that I have never lied, and that safety is my only agenda in supporting this bill."

I have never done anything but been totally honest in all of my posts. And now you have the nerve to try to use my honesty against me, by twisting my words into a completely distorted "translation", suggesting that I'm saying something that I didn't. For your information, due to my head injury, I do not even have the ability to lie. How low will you stoop in trying to discredit me?


I have experienced more than one highspeed powerboat who violated my 150 foot zone on Winni, because they were apparently going to fast to notice me in time to stay further away.

The fact that I have had these dangerous encounters on a lake that I have not spent a great deal of time on (compared to other large NH lakes), shows me that speed is a much larger problem on Winni than what is being protrayed on by the anti-speed limit people on this forum. If I had not had these close encounters on Winni, I would have returned to the lake much more often, because I happen to love this lake. And it's not much fun to go to a lake alone, because none of my paddling friends are willing to spend time there - because of "the speeds of the powerboats" (their reasons, not mine).

I have also shown, from their own report, that the MP only recorded the speeds of boats for less than 2% of the daylight hours during the 11 weeks that they collected data. Areas A and B were the primary test zones (which is clear in the report), and these primary test zones were the two that boaters knew about. What pecentage of boats were recording in areas A and B? How many boats were were clocked on the Broads? This was clearly not a fair reflection of the speeds of the entire lake.

I don't feel that the MP "fudged" any of the data - but that the study was not done properly. According to what I have been taught at my university, this study is not what any experts would view as a viable study.

Evenstar, I twist nothing, I just quote you, whether it discredits you or not is completely on you and what you write.

As far as the statement "Look, we're not all lying", you said it, I didn't make it up. For it to be true you must think some pro-speed limit people have lied, otherwise it's a lie. Pretty simple logic, they must have taught you that at the University.

Your "close encounters" are just too extraordinary for me to believe. Especially for the limited number of times you have been on the lake. If they're true, you must be like the guy who keeps getting hit by lightning, maybe he should stay in during thunderstorms.

Each "close encounter" would be a perfect storm of mistakes and bad luck, from being near a boat going above 45mph (highly unlikely based on the data) to the 150 ft distance violations (happens to me only 1 or 2 times per summer, and I am on the lake much more than you), it just doesn't make sense.

I think a more likely explanation is that you are a very bad judge of distance and speed.........

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Evenstar, I twist nothing, I just quote you, whether it discredits you or not is completely on you and what you write.

You twist everything that I post!

As far as the statement "Look, we're not all lying", you said it, I didn't make it up. For it to be true you must think some pro-speed limit people have lied, otherwise it's a lie. Pretty simple logic, they must have taught you that at the University.

You know nothing about logic. "It is the mistake of confusing logical implication and conversational implicature by thinking that "some are" statements logically imply "some are not" statements, when the former statements only conversationally implicate the latter. source: Paul Grice, "Logic and Conversation", reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words (Harvard, 1989).

Just because I can't be sure that no speed limit supporter is lying, does not mean or imply that some are lying. Again, you are trying to use my absolute honesty against me, which is totally unfair.

Your "close encounters" are just too extraordinary for me to believe.

I don't care if you believe me or not. You are judging my experience solely on what you have experienced and are attacking my credability just because I have experienced things that you haven't. I never lie. Can you honestly say that?

I think a more likely explanation is that you are a very bad judge of distance and speed.........

I've already explained to you in a previous post that I am an excellent judge of distance and speed - have you like no memory?

You really need to get a life. Attacking someone just because they don't share you're views is really pretty pathetic.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

You twist everything that I post!

You know nothing about logic. "It is the mistake of confusing logical implication and conversational implicature by thinking that "some are" statements logically imply "some are not" statements, when the former statements only conversationally implicate the latter. source: Paul Grice, "Logic and Conversation", reprinted in Studies in the Way of Words (Harvard, 1989).

Just because I can't be sure that no speed limit supporter is lying, does not mean or imply that some are lying. Again, you are trying to use my absolute honesty against me, which is totally unfair.

I don't care if you believe me or not. You are judging my experience solely on what you have experienced and are attacking my credability just because I have experienced things that you haven't. I never lie. Can you honestly say that?

I've already explained to you in a previous post that I am an excellent judge of distance and speed - have you like no memory?

You really need to get a life. Attacking someone just because they don't share you're views is really pretty pathetic.

Evenstar, you tell us about your expertise, you make it sound like you have years of experience on the lake when in fact you have hours of experience on the lake, now you tell us you are an excellent judge of distance and speed.

I am indeed growing tired of our exchanges. I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for you, for if you feel quoting your own words and showing problems with the words is a personal attack, you have lead a very charmed and sheltered life.......

[winnilaker]

There is only one word to describe what you read. "Sensationalism"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism

It's works in papers.
Worked in the House.
Time will tell if it works in the Senate.

Feel free to quote from the above link, it accurately describes what we're experiencing.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

Evenstar, you tell us about your expertise, you make it sound like you have years of experience on the lake when in fact you have hours of experience on the lake, now you tell us you are an excellent judge of distance and speed.

I am indeed growing tired of our exchanges. I'm actually starting to feel a little bad for you, for if you feel quoting your own words and showing problems with the words is a personal attack, you have lead a very charmed and sheltered life.......

All you want to do is tear my posts apart in an attempt to misquote me. Misquoting is changing the meaning of what I wrote or taking it out of context.

Why can't you just accept that other people have had different experiences than you? To you, someone must be lying, unless they see things exactly as you. Guess what? We're all different (thank God), and everyone is entitled to thier own opinion.

My ability to judge distance and speed has been tested - so this is not just a claim. I've explained all this before: I suffered a severe head injury to the left side of my brain when I was little, because of this the right side of my brain became overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in spatial awareness. So I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images.

Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea what 45 mph looks like. And I know what 150 feet looks like. If a speeding boat is less than 9 of my kayak lengths from me - they are too close. And I have had highspeed boats on Winni come within less than 5 kayak lengths, before they appeared to notice me.

There has been nothing "charmed" about my life. I have had a very difficult life. Although I will admit that I was very sheltered for many years.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

All you want to do is tear my posts apart in an attempt to misquote me. Misquoting is changing the meaning of what I wrote or taking it out of context.

Why can't you just accept that other people have had different experiences than you? To you, someone must be lying, unless they see things exactly as you. Guess what? We're all different (thank God), and everyone is entitled to thier own opinion.

My ability to judge distance and speed has been tested - so this is not just a claim. I've explained all this before: I suffered a severe head injury to the left side of my brain when I was little, because of this the right side of my brain became overdeveloped – I test “off the charts” in spatial awareness. So I tend to be pretty accurate in being able to estimate things like speed and distance. That’s because I can only think in images.

Plus I have spent a great deal of time on Squam, where the fastest boats consistently push the 40mph limit – so I have a pretty good idea what 45 mph looks like. And I know what 150 feet looks like. If a speeding boat is less than 9 of my kayak lengths from me - they are too close. And I have had highspeed boats on Winni come within less than 5 kayak lengths, before they appeared to notice me.

There has been nothing "charmed" about my life. I have had a very difficult life. Although I will admit that I was very sheltered for many years.

All I do is read your posts and decide whether what you say is reasonable or not, based on what you say, what you have said, and my own experiences.

My conclusions on what you have printed are based mostly on what you have written. Unlike making oral presentations, written arguments, especially in a medium like this, are easily compared to previous written arguments you've made. Inconsistencies stick out like a sore thumb. I actually held back for weeks if not months when you first started posting and I noticed that things weren't adding up. Then I realized the negative effect the exaggerations, misrepresentations, inaccuracies and in some cases ( I'm not saying you here) blatant lies were having, generating a groundswell of people who were actually believing the hype.

So I began pointing out the problems with your and other's stories. And there were many problems.

Through our and others interactions many truths have come out, truths that were not apparent when you first started telling us about your bad experiences on Lake Winnipesaukee. For instance, after you had been telling us about your bad encounters (implied to be on Lake Winnipesaukee) you finally admitted that you had at that time never paddled on the lake. Later we found out that your fear of motor boats was based on a near death experience you had while paddling on the Connecticut River.

Now you tell us that you have some kind of innate ability to accurately judge distance and speed that has been "tested". Give me a break. The more you try to impress me with your qualifications, the less impressed I become.

You allude to too many close, high speed encounters on Lake Winnipesaukee to be believable. One time, I might be able to believe, but the many that you talk about, not so much.

I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you, but to be honest with you I really don't care. The inconsistencies in your stories need to be pointed out, especially for people unfamiliar with our lake, who, if left to read your uncontested story will think that taking a kayak or similar boat on our lake is a deadly idea. It's just not true.

[Resident 2B]

WeirsBeachBoater,

Thanks for posting this list. It certainly is much longer than the "huge" list of supporting businesses.

For BI, this is another great example of why you should be very careful about what you are asking for. I am sure it is significantly longer than you thought it would be.

For me, this list also goes on the refrigerator, so that we will remember where to go when we need to make a purchase.

R2B

[WeirsBeachBoater]

No problem R2B. Glad to help out.

[Bear Islander]

Originally Posted by Resident 2B

WeirsBeachBoater,

Thanks for posting this list. It certainly is much longer than the "huge" list of supporting businesses.

For BI, this is another great example of why you should be very careful about what you are asking for. I am sure it is significantly longer than you thought it would be.

For me, this list also goes on the refrigerator, so that we will remember where to go when we need to make a purchase.

R2B

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

[codeman671]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

I am not picking on your for posting it, but a few of the supporters surprise me. Glendale Marine for instance, being that they are the local Manitou dealer at the lake and claim to have the fastest pontoons around- capable of 60mph. The sign they hung last year stated "Hot Rod Pontoon-60MPH!!! "

Rather odd for a supporter to advertise like this. He will be getting a call from me this week for sure. I think we all know why Rusty is a supporter, he is lucky to have a restaurant at all after his establishments involvement in a past incident.

[GWC...]

Originally Posted by codeman671

I am not picking on your for posting it, but a few of the supporters surprise me. Glendale Marine for instance,...

He will be getting a call from me this week for sure.

Perhaps a review of the opposition list will be prudent before you make that call.

Seems Glendale Marine made both lists.

Also, seems they're not the only one.

Originally Posted by WeirsBeachBoater

These NH Businesses and Associations Oppose House Bill 847

Marine Industry Businesses

Glendale Marina - Gilford

Y Landing Marina - Meredith

[WeirsBeachBoater]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

I have seen the list before. It's an excellent example of who opposes speed limits. Thanks for posting, a more appropriate response than sniping the supporters list.

I was with you until the last 9 words. I was not sniping. I was pointing out the TRUTH! Facts, as we call them. But I wouldn't expect your side to understand what facts are, supporters don't use them!

[hazelnut]

NONE OF THAT HAPPENED ON LAKE WINNIPESAUKEE!!!!

Are you serious. I really had higher hopes for you.

Do you have amnesia? I asked you to answer a yes or no question YESTERDAY!!!!!

I will quote it for those who do not want to scroll up:

Bear Islander and all supporters of the HB in question please answer a simple yes or no to the following question. No adjective, description, comment, argument just a simple y/n or if you prefer yes/no.

The biggest problem on the lake today is that boats are speeding. Yes or No

Please tell me what your answer was? It's right here on the forum for all to see.

Oh I see we are splitting hairs I should have said you yourself agreed that speed was not the BIGGEST problem. Whatever.

I want you to give me Lake Winnipesaukee specific statistics... Guess what YOU CAN'T. You are really grabbing at straws here. I should have expected it to go down this road. I had such high hopes.

[Evenstar]

Originally Posted by ITD

I actually held back for weeks if not months when you first started posting and I noticed that things weren't adding up.

For instance, after you had been telling us about your bad encounters (implied to be on Lake Winnipesaukee) you finally admitted that you had at that time never paddled on the lake.[/quote]
This is just not true. In my 2nd post on this forum I wrote: "Even though this is called the Winnipesaukee forums, isn't it about the entire Lakes Region? I mean, it's ok to ask about Squam and other lakes, isn't it. The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning. I wrote that on my very first day as a member.

Later we found out that your fear of motor boats was based on a near death experience you had while paddling on the Connecticut River.

In my very next post I wrote: I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds.
That incident that I had on the CT river was not the first time that I have had a close call high-speed power boats. I never said that it was a "near death experience" and I'm not afraid of powerboats - just of the idiots who go too fast to see me.

Now you tell us that you have some kind of innate ability to accurately judge distance and speed that has been "tested". Give me a break. The more you try to impress me with your qualifications, the less impressed I become.

I never lie. I have been tested. When you have had a severe head injury, you get tested ALOT - in all sorts of ways. I have had electrocephalogram tests, MRI tests, and all sorts of medical, written, and vision, language, comprehension, and awareness tests. Just like anyone, I have strengths and weaknesses. Language is one of my weaknesses. Spatial awareness is one on my strengths. The woman who tested me told me that my spatial awareness is "off the charts". Look up spatial awareness.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience or ability than what I actually have.

I'm sorry you feel I'm attacking you, but to be honest with you I really don't care. The inconsistencies in your stories need to be pointed out

You are attacking me! You are making up outright lies about what I wrote in this forum - just to discredit me. That is underhanded, it is wrong, and it is against the rules of this forum! I have always been totally honest here - you have not.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Evenstar

This is just not true. In my 2nd post on this forum I wrote: "Even though this is called the Winnipesaukee forums, isn't it about the entire Lakes Region? I mean, it's ok to ask about Squam and other lakes, isn't it. The thing is that I haven't even been on Winni yet, but I do plan on exploring it some this year in my kayak. In fact I just got my Bizer chart this morning. I wrote that on my very first day as a member.

In my very next post I wrote: I haven't kayaked on Winni yet, but I have been on other NH lakes enough to comment on high speeds.
That incident that I had on the CT river was not the first time that I have had a close call high-speed power boats. I never said that it was a "near death experience" and I'm not afraid of powerboats - just of the idiots who go too fast to see me.


I never lie. I have been tested. When you have had a severe head injury, you get tested ALOT - in all sorts of ways. I have had electrocephalogram tests, MRI tests, and all sorts of medical, written, and vision, language, comprehension, and awareness tests. Just like anyone, I have strengths and weaknesses. Language is one of my weaknesses. Spatial awareness is one on my strengths. The woman who tested me told me that my spatial awareness is "off the charts". Look up spatial awareness.

I’ve explained what areas I am experienced in and have admitted my lack of experience in others. I have NEVER once pretended to have had any more experience or ability than what I actually have.


You are attacking me! You are making up outright lies about what I wrote in this forum - just to discredit me. That is underhanded, it is wrong, and it is against the rules of this forum! I have always been totally honest here - you have not.

I know what spatial awareness is, and I also looked it up. "Spatial awareness is an organised knowledge of objects including oneself, in a given space. Spatial awareness also involves understanding the relationships of these objects when there is a change of position."

Nowhere in the definitions of Spatial Awareness does it mention the "ability to judge distance and speed". The human brain cannot accurately judge distance or speed without some type of tool. We can estimate, but our estimates generally are not very good. That's why we have rulers, tape measures and speedometers. You are, once again, mistaken if you think you can accurately judge distance and speed. Especially speed, while sitting in your kayak. In fact, that is probably the problem with your perceptions of the lake.

Pointing out inconsistencies in your posts, which are plentiful, does not make me a liar. You feel as though you should be able to post whatever you like and not be challenged as to your information's veracity. Well, when the information you post will result in restrictions imposed on me, you better have your act together. If I see a problem with your post, I am going to point it out. You can cry all you want about it, but that is the way it is.

As far as personal attacks go, reread what you write about me. You call me: a liar, underhanded, wrong and other things. Who's comments are bordering on personal attacks? Why yours are. It's ok though, I'm a grown up, I can take it.

The only thing I want to discredit is your message, that the lake is a dangerous place for kayaks because of boats travelling above 45 mph. It's simply not true. It's not supported by the statistics, the speed survey or many people's extensive experience on the lake.

Lighten up, stick to the facts, quit crying about personal attacks when you lose in the arena of ideas.........

BTW, I'm aware of your initial posts, they were used to point out that you didn't have extensive experience on the lake when your later posts gave the impression that you did.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by ITD

"...A quotation from before the data was taken APS, why didn't you point that out????????..."

I don't need to point it out—it's in the link.

In 2005, Director Barrett says that radar works poorly at angles, that "only" 15% of boats exceed 55-MPH.

He then authorizes:
1) a monkey-wrench of a study by a dismissed Safety Director using
2) marked patrol boats with
3) unpaid volunteers holding
4) the "inaccurate" radar units whose
5) results are selectively thrown out to
6) result in a survey that finds that fewer boats are identified speeders when
7) the measuring zones are advertised in advance.

Moreover, what Director Barrett said in 2005 was parroting one conspicuous hero of "facts":

"...police radar...is not useful for speed limit enforcement on Lake Winnipesaukee or any other body of water..."
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

I don't need to point it out—it's in the link.

In 2005, Director Barrett says that radar works poorly at angles, that "only" 15% of boats exceed 55-MPH.

A comment BEFORE the study, when nobody, including you had any idea how many speeding boats were on the lake.......

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

He then authorizes:
1) a monkey-wrench of a study by a dismissed Safety Director using

Didn't go your way, would have been the gold standard of studies had it proven your point. Sore loser, there is no problem, you need to twist, fabricate and use data from far away to prove point....

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) marked patrol boats with

Hmmmm, another poster on this site disagrees with this assertion, says unmarked boats were indeed used, this theory may just get blown out of the water, pun intended, just like "all the test zones were announced before the test".

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

3) unpaid volunteers holding

Here we go again, so now you are saying all the readings were taken by "unpaid volunteers" ? Doesn't sound right APS, just like most of the SL things you post, kills your creditability.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4) the "inaccurate" radar units whose
5) results are selectively thrown out to

Once again, not the whole story. The radar units, used in their intended environment are very accurate. Innaccuracies arise when used on boats. Incident angle issues, which cause the reading to be lower than the actual speed can be an issue. The MP stated they used only readings taken head on. They took this step because otherwise you and your side would be jumping all over the results for cosine error, can't do that now, so now you insinuate the opposite, that high speed results were omitted, give me break. If I take the results and shift them for a 30 degree cosine error, the number of boats over 45 mph go from less than 1 percent to less than 3 percent. Face it, there is no speed problem on the lake, the speed limit is a waste of time , money and resources.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

6) result in a survey that finds that fewer boats are identified speeders when

I just covered that, you are wrong, or worse.......

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

7) the measuring zones are advertised in advance.

You know better by now, this is pretty much a bald faced mischaracterization of the truth, when you print this at this time............

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Bear Islander

"...Lt. Dunleavy has contacted me with the information that some of the data was collected from unmarked boats, but that which data came from which type of boat was not recorded..."

Would that be their new, unmarked Jet-Ski radar platforms?

While the addition of radar locations is a good thing, it's also "Science Conducted-on-the-Fly".

Originally Posted by ITD

"...this is pretty much a bald faced mischaracterization of the truth, when you print this at this time............"

Then I find myself in very good company.

With only two opportunities to respond (to your seven in this thread), please allow this one Supporter to summarize the findings of "The Study". (Now referred to as "The Survey").

1) The study was a last-minute swerve into NH lawmakers' deliberations. Now that "The Survey" has been implicitly recognized as such (by the two-to-one majority vote in the House) was it not a last-minute dodge?
2) The only unmarked patrol boats are Jet-Skis—as described in local Winnipesaukee forums. (Need a link?)
3) Unpaid volunteers weren't pointing the radar? (This link says they were).
4) It wasn't only Director Barrett who claimed radar inaccuracies. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1 (Until the "study" happily disclosed that it can be—when results you don't like get discarded).
5) Results weren't thrown out? (The NHMP stated so!)
6) The study contradicts the Director. (Was he wrong in 2005 or in 2007?)
7) The measuring zones were not only advertised in New Hampshire sources, but at many Internet boating sites. Other locations were announced later on—though I witnessed zero sites—and none were in my "problem-boat" neighborhood.

I linked the Director's quotes (and another Supporter's exact quote). Now I'll quote one of your Fellow Opponents:

Rep. David Russell said the limit was too arbitrary. “As far as I’m concerned, numbers don’t make it...,”

Links:
Concord Monitor links:
http://ossipeelake.org/news/2005/10/...akes-proposed/
http://ossipeelake.org/news/2007/07/...not-enforcing/

Other link:
http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1

[ITD]

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

Then I find myself in very good company.

If you are referring to Hillary in that article, then you and I will see eye to eye on very little I'm afraid.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

With only two opportunities to respond (to your seven in this thread), please allow this one Supporter to summarize the findings of "The Study". (Now referred to as "The Survey").

Hmmm, and who is to blame if your access has been limited?????

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

1) The study was a last-minute swerve into NH lawmakers' deliberations. Now that "The Survey" has been implicitly recognized as such (by the two-to-one majority vote in the House) was it not a last-minute dodge?

This is your opinion APS, stated as fact. I actually thought the study was a good idea when I heard about it because I knew the reports of fast boats, mayhem and the wild west were wrong, or sensationalism. A study/survery like this apparently frightened the people who knew they were exagerating to get their way, hence the frenzied effort to discredit it and even prevent it from being published.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

2) The only unmarked patrol boats are Jet-Skis—as described in local Winnipesaukee forums. (Need a link?)

Actually a quote and link would be nice. Did it ever occur to you that perhaps some MP officers are boaters too???

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

3) Unpaid volunteers weren't pointing the radar? (This link says they were).

Unpaid volunteer = Marine Patrol Auxiliary member Ray Petty

You know, why is every line you write carefully crafted to give the wrong impression to a reader? The truth shall set you free my friend. An auxiliary officer is hardly a schmoe off the street. In fact I'm willing to bet they even have some police type powers.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

4) It wasn't only Director Barrett who claimed radar inaccuracies. http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/...92&postcount=1 (Until the "study" happily disclosed that it can be—when results you don't like get discarded).
5) Results weren't thrown out? (The NHMP stated so!)

Already covered this, had results not been thrown out you still would have complained, about cosine error. And in that case it would be justified, now it is not. Who said this survey wasn't well designed.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

6) The study contradicts the Director. (Was he wrong in 2005 or in 2007?)

Why yes it does contradict the Director, he estimated 15% were travelling over 45 mph, when in FACT only 0.9% were. It's amazing what you learn when you study. This unprecedented study show that the people talking about mayhem, wild west, speeding boats everywhere were at best mistaken, at their worst liars.

Originally Posted by Acres per Second

7) The measuring zones were not only advertised in New Hampshire sources, but at many Internet boating sites. Other locations were announced later on—though I witnessed zero sites—and none were in my "problem-boat" neighborhood.

I've only seen the two proposed speed limit areas advertised, where I believe less than 30 % of the readings were taken. The other areas were not advertised to my knowledge, if they were show me.

Some of your links don't work, is that by design????