elchase

Just asking. What's your point?

I agree, so let's just both promise not to do it and leave it at that.

And many would say that you are the liar...let's just agree that we both believe the other is a liar , drop the name-calling and insulting, and leave it at that.

And you people wonder why we need laws? Please don't put your 6-year old son behind the helm of a speeding 36-foot performance boat while I am on the lake. You might have a lot of faith in him, but that just shows a lack of that "common sense" we were talking about.

You really need to take a Logics course. This argument is simply not valid. But I will not call it a lie because I expect that you really believe that your first two statements prove your last (they don't).

Same thing. Take a logic course. First off, "most reasonable people" do not likely have that understanding. Most would probably feel that alcohol consumption was a contributor to the accident. Any rational person would also admit (at least to himself) that speed also had to be a contributor. Had he been going 5MPH, would Hartman have died? Probably not. Now at what speed did Hartman's death become probable? Was it 20MPH, 25? 28? 35? We just do not an cannot know for sure. Anyone who says they know is not being honest (either with himself or those he is talking to. I won't say he is a liar. And anyone who says he would not have died at twice the impact speed is not being honest. To say that speed is not part of the equation is simply nonsense, and it is impossible to argue against nonsense.

A boat going admittedly over the SL limit hit and killed someone, and it is disingenuous to cite it in a SL discussion? Or are you saying, "Please don't use it because it is so damaging to our argument"? Of course this accident will always be brought up. and of course Blizzard's will be brought up. And of course the Eagle Island collisions will be brought up. And of course all the roll-overs will be brought up. Those are the events that cumulatively brought all this to a head. You can't just dismiss them because the exact speed in each case was not measured. There is no forensic means to ever establish a boat's speed after the fact (except if it had a recording GPS), so if the bar is set that high that we need to prove the speed a boat was going, of course there will never have been a high speed caused accident, according to you. But when we keep having boat after boat going too fast and imperiling life and property around the lake, it is time to make a change. And we made a change. And it is working great....not a single accident this summer where the cause even could have been related to excessive speed.

Semantics. Did you really not understand my point?

Funny, but I was going to write the exact same line to all 7 of you guys yesterday, but I figured it was not my place to lecture and you would not want to hear it anyway (like me). The derogatory level of my comments does not even start to approach the level of some of the comments you guys throw at me (see Codman's comment discussed below). When I give back, often just re-quoting what was thrown at me, you guys all seem to have the same reaction..."don't get personal"..."no name-calling"..."keep it civil". I'm all for keeping it civil, but it has to go both ways. My opinions are not lies just because they do not agree with yours or help your position. Those on my side (which has been scientifically shown to represent the vast majority of us) do not insult those on your side for your side's opinions (even though they sound fanciful, redundant yet contradictory, and oftentimes comical to us). If you want civility, you need to start being civil yourselves.

It's not my job to do your research for you. Do your own. Take a physics course. Go on line and do some research, You'll see.

So let's just agree that the dislike and distrust is mutual and move on.

While I'd rather have heard this from an opposer who has some scientific credibility, it is nice to finally hear one of you admit that high speed kills, and that 50MPH is too dangerous. Thank you.

You know this? How? Or are you just speculating (I won't say "lying")? And might your speculation not be tainted by your agenda? At what exact speed would Hartman have survived? At what exact speed would Mrs Hartman have died too? Since you apparently have access to information unavailable to the rest of mankind, please enlighten us.

Then there are some very young members on this forum. I'm still waiting for Hazelnut's apology. Please pass this statement to her.

I can't answer these questions, but in general, this is a philosophy that I simply don't believe in...blame someone else. Maybe I'm just more conservative than you, but I feel we need to take responsibility for our own actions and stop trying to put responsibility for the mistakes we make onto others. Nobody put a gun to Littlefield's head that night and made him drink. Nobody pushed his throttle down. Nobody made him flee. If we keep blaming others like the 22 yr old bartender who did not know that Littlefield had already been drinking at his table, or the people at the docks who did not stop Littlefield from leaving, or the guy at the marina who did not sell Hartman a higher wattage bulb, then we are just telling Littlefield that he was not responsible for Hartman's death. There was only one criminal that night...everyone else was a victim.

I think if you are truly honest you will look back over what you wrote and see how many of your "facts" are not in-fact facts, they are just your opinions or wants tailored into factual-looking statements. There are just too many unknowns to draw many of the conclusions you do, and all of your conclusions swing one way. You don't have to write back and apologize...just be honest with yourself and I'm sure that, for example, you'll have to admit (to yourself) that Littlefield's speed contributed to Hartman's death. I'm the first to admit that alcohol also contributed. But alcohol did not kill Hartman, and neither did that bartender.

See, this is what I was talking about above. This is a really rude and slanderous implication. If I made this statement, you guys would be jumping all over it and it would be the subject of twenty follow-ups. Yet it is so common in the opposers posts that when one of you make, it just slips though unnoticed. Are you saying that I am a child molster? Are you saying I am on par with child molesters? You guys really stoop too low sometimes.

As I've been taught (and this might be wrong...so don't call me a liar if it is), Laws with sunset provisions are meant to be extended unless the laws are shown to be non-functional or detrimental. Legislators do not make habit of passing ad hoc laws except for addressing ad hoc problems. If the problem was a construction project, for example, they might have a temporary construction curfew law that sunsets after the project's completion. They intend for the law to sunset because the problem is over. When there is a permanent problem, the burden falls on showing that the law did not fix the problem. We obviously had a problem. Thousands of citizens weighed in, attended hearings, and wrote their legislators (from both sides), all saying that boating on the lake was mayhem. Opposers blamed that on one thing or another (everything except high speeds), supporters blamed it at least partly on high speeds. But nobody (to my memory - except the MP director) said it was a boating paradise out there and nothing needed to be done. Now this summer, we saw no accidents that could possibly be blamed on excessive speed, and many people are saying it was a boating paradise out there. So why would the legislature sunset this bill and have us return to the mayhem? Just because 7 guys on this forum who say they don't obey the law anyway and say the MP is not even trying to enforce it want it to sunset? Maybe it's me, Maybe my view is tainted by my love of the civility that I witnessed out there first-hand this summer, but I just can't see it.

A speeding boat went aground in NY just the other day and killed four people. There are dozens of high-speed tragedies around the country every summer. But you guys say those are not on Winnipesaukee so they are irrelevant. Has that rule changed? If so, I have a lot to write about. But there will always be exceptions and no one law is going to fix all problems or be obeyed by all. Murder is illegal and we still have murders and murderers. But does that mean we should not keep murder illegal?

I agree, but if this is really your motive, there are many larger fish to go after. You really aren't doing this just to save our legislators from wasting some time are you? Be honest.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

We were talking about how nice it was out on the lake this summer and how there were no high-speed boating accidents.

I was actually worried about your disappearance. I thought there might have been a Trekkie convention somewhere (just razzing).

You see me as stirring the pot, and I see it the other way...to each his own. I'm the center of attention becasue I am almost the only one arguing against the 7 of you. My goal is not to go with the flow and agree with you guys. I have an opinion on this. It is the polar opposite of the opinion of the 7 of you, and that is not going to change. You guys need to accept that as I do. I don't accuse you of stirring the pot, being a troll, or lying every time you say something that I disagree with. I'm a big boy, I can take the heat. If you guys are going to give it out, you need to grow some skin.

See above. Speed was certainly a factor and this accident will/should always be at the center of this matter (as should Blizzards). Just saying there was no proof how fast they were going does not mean they were going slow. Just because you don't want us to keep bringing it up does not mean we can't or won't. They were both obviously and undeniably going too fast. When you guys turn an opinion about something you cannot know into a "fact", that is just discussion. When I say anything that you disagree with, it is a lie. You can't keep trying to have it both ways.

Amen