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

hazelnut · 11-21-2010, 03:10 PM

Does anyone else want to take this and spell out the obvious? I'll get it started. TB what was the reason given by the state that the original hearing was deemed invalid? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Hahahaha.

Yankee · 11-21-2010, 03:23 PM

Beat me to it Hazelnut!

Turtle Boy · 11-21-2010, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hazelnut

Does anyone else want to take this and spell out the obvious? I'll get it started. TB what was the reason given by the state that the original hearing was deemed invalid? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Hahahaha.

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

Yankee · 11-21-2010, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

Apparently the obvious needs to be stated. The petition that you are refering was rejected outright:

Requoting OCD in post# 220:

"the Original Petition fails to provide the requisite number of signatures with supporting proof that the co petitioners are either residents or property owners pursuant to RSA 270:12,I. Based upon my response within section IV, (sub. 3), the Appellants Motion to Reopen pursuant to RSA 541:3 are granted.

The original petitioners must provide proof that a minium number of the original 25 co-petitioners listed in the original document are residents or property owners in Tuftonboro by use of official town record.

Since many petitioners are of the same family / property this will be impossible to do."

This is yet another in a LONG line of your lame attempts to intentionally and feebly misdirect the truth. Why do you keep digging the hole that you're in deeper?

VtSteve · 11-21-2010, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Turtle Boy

So, 20 plus people in favor of a NWZ. But thems are facts and facts don't matter to good ole HN. Tell me again how only 2 people were in favor of the NWZ. hahahaha

We got our SL...you need to get over it...you really are a nasty and denigrating person as has been pointed out in the past; hope they get their NWZ...their testimony is compelling and it seems inevitable they will eventually prevail.

Wow!

Quote:

STATISTICS:

On July 21, 2010, three (3) persons testified and twelve (12)
persons signed to record themselves in support of the petition. One (1)
person testified, and one (1) person signed to not speak, but be
recorded against the petition. Hon. John A. Veazey, State
Representative provided a history of the area known as Barber’s Pole.
Prior to and/or after the hearing, fifty-seven (57) people sent via mail,
e-mail or facsimile public commentary. The hearing was closed to public
comment at the conclusion of the business day on Friday, July 23, 2010.

Sounds like a tidal wave of support there TB.

Was Mr. Phillips the Coach? He was my favorite. He sounded eloquent enough to be Warren Clark. You guys must have been planning this since you first came across some old filings.

TB, you really should pass this off to WC, he's a much better liar than you are, lot's smoother as well. One thing to consider. Right here on this forum, you and others, have completely contradicted your prior statements about how wonderful and peaceful the lake has been, For Two Years Now.!!!

Everyone's keeping track at this point, because sure as there's an idiot missing from someone's village, you guys will come out with some outlandish (and contradictory) story for next year's misery.

gtagrip · 11-22-2010, 12:22 PM

Still waiting for TB to answer the question poised by Yankee. But since the silence is so defining, I think we all know the answer.

Acres, yes, I do consider you to be in the 3 or 4.

11-21-2010, 03:23 PM	#2
Yankee Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 150 Thanks: 19 Thanked 38 Times in 23 Posts	Beat me to it Hazelnut! __________________ __________________ __________________ So what have we learned in the past two thousand years? "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of Obamunism should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest the Republic become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." . . .Evidently nothing. (Cicero, 55 BC augmented by me, 2010 AD)

11-21-2010, 03:10 PM	#1
hazelnut Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 1,348 Blog Entries: 3 Thanks: 508 Thanked 462 Times in 162 Posts	Does anyone else want to take this and spell out the obvious? I'll get it started. TB what was the reason given by the state that the original hearing was deemed invalid? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count. Hahahaha.

11-22-2010, 12:22 PM	#6
gtagrip Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 301 Thanks: 115 Thanked 75 Times in 52 Posts	Still waiting for TB to answer the question poised by Yankee. But since the silence is so defining, I think we all know the answer. Acres, yes, I do consider you to be in the 3 or 4.

The Following User Says Thank You to gtagrip For This Useful Post:
Yankee (11-22-2010)