1) There is much information omitted. These sound like the arguments I used when I was a teenager:
Are you saying that you doubt my story? Which part did I omit? And what were you doing as a teenager that you had to omit information from your "stories"?
2) "On my way home from work on Friday, I picked up a case of beer. Since I like it cold when I get home, I put it in a cooler with ice."
You can buy beer
cold but my experience has shown
that must have one heck of a commute! Make the ice in your cooler slushy with water, and any beverage will cool much faster.
Yes, I realize I can buy cold beer, and yes I have a long commute. But I like my beer ice cold. But what does that have to do with anything?
3) "I crashed my car into a telephone pole and was gravely injured, I might have even died."
You couldn't have drowned! 
Of course I could have. What if my car had hit a telephone pole and slid into a river. But does the manner in which I died really matter?
Just as "45 is a very fast speed on the water",
BWI is a much-more serious form of abusing alcohol than
DWI.
BWI/BUI has NOTHING to do with you assertion that "45 is a very fast speed on the water". Whether Boating or Driving a car while intoxicated are serious violations of the law, and both can similarly end in tragedy.
I had a telephone pole in my front yard sheared-off by a Mazda RX-7's impact—after hitting it sideways! Driving
faster is probably safer! 
What a great argument for SBONH!
What does an accident on the road have to do with a group called Safe BOATERS of NH? And where has SBONH ever stated that "driving faster is safer"?
4) "Upon investigation, the police found a bunch of beer cans in the passenger compartment of my car."
Were they in the
front seat's footwell? Were they
prior "empties" or the 18-pack you spoke of? Besides Erica, who stores "empty beer cans"
inside their vehicle?
Somebody else must have dropped them in there.
No, this post is not about Erica. It is solely about transporting alcohol in a vehicle. It has nothing to do with consumption. Remember, in my accident, no empties were found.
(Please, SBONH, don't all you "safe boaters" race to support the storage of empty beer cans inside the passenger compartment of your boat!)
Again, what does this have to do with SBONH? As I stated, there were no empties found IN MY CAR. I was merely transporting alcohol, which you are against.
5) "Blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car."
If your BAC was .03,
you were somewhat impaired upon your collision.
Why was your BAC omitted from the above account?
Um what? Which part of "blood tests confirm that I was not drinking when I crashed my car" did you not understand?
6) "BTW, I crashed because I was texting. Yes, I know that is illegal".
Texting while driving indicates a "judgment problem"—just as what follows upon taking that first sip of alcohol.
Again, I was not drinking, I had not had a "sip" of alcohol. My judgement problem being solely that I was texting while driving.
7) "Was anything I did illegal, immoral or unethical?"
Your texting definitely put you off to a bad start! Since you admit that texting is illegal, will you also continue to ignore other NH laws that you don't like?
No, the only law that I broke was texting while driving. How can that possibly imply that I ignored any other laws, nevermind "continue to ignore" any other laws. Which laws do you think that I have ignored in the past, based on the information in my post?
8) "First of all, you might as well just drop the witches canal thing. I am not sure what you are trying to suggest or imply, but it makes no sense whatsoever. No one has even considered or suggested any such canal."
The Witches Canal was merely expanding on a prior suggestion of FLL's: The State could:
• placate the Lake's scariest thrill-seekers,
• expand on viewing-options and locations for any speedsters who don't care to take in the Lake's scenic views at sane speeds,
• to keep over-sized boats from terrorizing any other boaters transiting the Broads,
• to transform a "problem area" into a revenue-creating area—other than sending revenue for new propellers—
to Maine.
As always, FLLs suggestion is pretty far-fetched and incredibly unlikely. It is not even worthy of a rational discussion.
Are you
denying that powerboats will speed-up within the confines of a canal?
When the canal was dredged, was a law put into place to restrict power boats from speeding up? I am sure that a majority of power boaters are law-abiding citizens. However, as always, there are certain "scofflaws" who would ignore any law that might exist about that particular canal.
BTW: Are you reading that SB27 is described as "A Dead Man Walking" ?
No I have not read that.