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

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by elchase

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. Moderating is one thing, but when a post gets edited in a way that has its intent reversed, it should say so.

Thanks Hazelnut for the thought, but you should know that my post was edited in a way that gave its meaning a 180. I can't say how much of this post gets through, but I won't be surprised if the only thing that shows up is "Thanks Hazelnut".

I support a NWZ at the Barber's Pole. Knowing that probably 9 out of every 10 people that write in will support it was the reason I provided the address. You few can take advantage, but I'm confident that many more will write in from my side. And in this case, letters coming in with postmarks from California, Washington State, Saskatchewan, Hong Kong, and Mickey Mouse will surely not get counted.

The point of my pre-edited post was to point out the irony and blatant phoniness of this opposition. It is so obvious as to be laughable how most of the group objecting to the BP NWZ is only doing so because some of the petitioners were supporters of another issue. This has nothing to do with safety, any slippery slope, or even the Barber's Pole. It is just an attempt at revenge.

Pretty much every one of this same small group was a member of NHRBA, who petitioned the state to have the waters just in front of your biggest contributor's McMansion made a personal NWZ. The arguments FOR that NWZ apply identically to this case, but ironically are being turned upside down here. Compare the situation when NHRBA (you all) was arguing for a NWZ at Eagle Island to benefit the guy who donated the most money to NHRBA's anti-SL efforts to the efforts here to quash a NWZ in a much more deserving area, full of less wealthy people who don't have $40K breakwaters to protect their boats and children. Compare the people posting here and writing to Safety now to oppose the BP NWZ to those who posted here and wrote in to support the Eagle Island NWZ. The hypocrisy is startling.

Webmaster,
Hopefully, you will put this post through complete and unedited. There is nothing in here that is worse or new compared to other posts on this thread, so I can see no good reason for you to block or edit it. If it does make it through, then I promise you I will never darken the door of this forum again. But if it is not to be posted in its unedited entirety, please just don't post it at all. Please don't put my name on things I did not write.

Hmmm... I was never a member on the NHRBA nor did I know that that group or offshoreonly.com existed until you or your band of merry men started posting about them.

You were edited because you are what you are- a stirrer of pots who adds very little value to this great forum.

Have a nice day and life, because I am pretty sure your post got through in its entirety.

Best regards!

[winni83]

I will miss reading the creative and self serving fiction contained in most of the posts from this now departed member of the group of three.

[VtSteve]

Thankfully, the thread isn't about them, nor anyone else. It's about a proposed NWZ. We've yet to hear from real people with real names, nor see the video show of the area. We've heard from a couple of residents that don't think it's an issue to propose a NWZ, but maybe someone that owns a little island with rental units and a small boat does.

The bottom line is this. People that use vague language, and language that is meant to illicit fear and prompt action, always stand back and question. I'm sure many still want these issue to be shelved, and never hear the dialogue. Or would you just rather they change the lake as you sleep through it?

[TiltonBB]

Step back and take a look at the whole lake. Think of how many people would love to have a personal "No wake" zone in front of their house. Think about what you are really asking for. Think about how the lake will change with more rules and regulations. Think about what that would mean if you decided to take a 3 hour cruise around the lake and had to slow down to 5 MPH at 15-25 no wake zones. Is this what you really want?

There is not a single waterfront home that does not see the effects of rain, wind, waves, ice, snow, and boat wakes in the course of a year. It is a lake. These things happen, make an adjustment and move on. Life is too short!

People need to get over their "It's all about me" attitudes and live and let live.

[Rattlesnake Guy]

I am a little confused by the need for some nwz. I can see it near a marina or other area where waves would be of exceptional concern. My difficulty is with the logic that some shore line is more special than other. That some swimmers need protection from boats and waves more than others. The existing rule of keeping 150 feet from shore and other boats seems like it would satisfy the need to protect all concerned. You don't have to be in narrow section of the lake to have people plowing 50 feet from the shore. Lets enforce the laws we have and stop adding more.

[trfour]

Ya, kind'a like enforcing a mandatory law what 'axes for the use of lawnmowers at local barber shops!

Laws are already in place! Lets enforce them first!

We all know only too well that the state has cut the NHMP's budget, and that there are some short hairs what want to build a whole 'nother world over here.

Now, keep this page open! WE will try to come out the other side!



Terry
_______________________________________