[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????