MacGregor 26M - Valiant 40

[Jim Cate]

Roger MacGregor wrote:

> Mr Cate, if you will read the fine brochure put out by my writers you
> will see that we do not recommend taking a Mac 26 M Powersailer out to
> 'blue water'. For your own safety DO NOT sail or motor a Mac 26 M
> powersailer more than 3 miles offshore. You have been warned, in front
> of many witnesses. Any injuries, deaths, or losses due to a Mac 26 M
> Powersailer past the 3 mile limit will be your own damn fault. We ARE
> NOT responsible for your boat!
>
> Roger MacGregor

In that case, you need to correct those on your staff who respond to
inquiries from those of us who call and request information about your
boats. When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
designed for. They have assured me that it is a great boat in which to
sail or motor out to Catalina island (25 miles out). And the water
between the California coast and Catalina island is certainly blue. My
own dealer has told me that the boat is perfectly suitable for sailing
offshore, and the he wouldn't hesitate to take it offshore. Also, I
have made it clear to him several times that that's what I intend to do.
Another dealer I spoke with said the same thing and told me that he
had sailed Macs offshore many times, sailed to the Bahamas 12 times, and
would not hesitate to do it again. I also note that there is absolutely
NOTHING in your literature (if you are really Roger MacGregor, that is)
warning your customers not to take their boats more than three miles
offshore.

In other words, you are either a troll, or if not, MacGregor has some
serious legal liability issues.

Jim



>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message ...
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
>>>same page.
>>>
>>
>>John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
>>have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
>>your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
>>before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
>>notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
>>lost at sea.
>>
>>
>>
>>Jim
>>

[Jim Cate]

Roger MacGregor wrote:

> Dear Mr. Cate,
> Please stop talking about the 26M Powersailer on this news group. You
> have generated more negative publicity for my product than any
> competitor has ever been able to. This is a news group filled ,for the
> most part with real sailors, who know what a crappy, shoddy product we
> peddle. My beloved 26M powersailer is targeted to the beginner boater
> who has no clue what-so-ever as to what he wants or how bad our boat
> really is. Let's keep that our little secret, shall we? Otherwise I
> will be forced to sic my lawyers on you.
>
> Roger MacGregor


Sure thing, Roger.



>
>
> Jim Cate > wrote in message >...
>
>>The reason I started this discussion string was that I had hoped to
>>initiate some discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of widely
>>differing boats, such as the heavy, displacement Valiant 40 and the much
>>lighter, Mac 26M, which is a planing boat under power.
>>
>>As I expected from past treatment of Mac enthusiasts on this ng, many
>>were highly offended that I would even suggest that there were
>>substantive advantages to both boats, including the Mac. They were even
>>more frustrated that I would CONTINUE to hold to my positions. Most
>>responses have been from contributors who didn't know anything about the
>>changes made on the 26m, and when told it wasn't the same hull, insisted
>>on swearing that it was. (In other words, many respondents (not all)
>>were pontificating about a boat they knew very little about.) Another
>>frequent comment was that I was obviously a paid shill for MacGregor,
>>repeating their advertising propaganda. In this regard, has anyone ever
>>heard of restrictions relative to Deceptive Trade Practices, or false
>>advertising? Or, has anyone ever heard about actions in tort (assuming
>>that MacGregor has tortuously misled or misinformed their customers, or
>>class actions? Or, has anyone read Section 3369 of the California Civil
>>Code? In other words, MacGregor can't merely publish a series of lies
>>about their boats, and they are subject to potential litigation of
>>various kinds if it can be demonstrated that their advertising is
>>deceptive, as some on this ng have asserted, and if buyers have been
>>relied on it and been damaged.
>>
>>Few of the responses have addressed the advantages pointed out for the
>>Mac 26M in my first few notes. Instead, many of the responses are
>>essentially something like this:
>>
>> Jim, anyone who defends the Mac 26 is obviously a novice who
>>doesn't know what he is talking about, so I'm not even going to address
>>the five points you made concerning advantages you see in the Mac.
>>(Of course, that's a convenient cover if you really don't have an
>>answer and can't respond rationally or substantively.)
>>
>>In an attempt to get the discussion back on track and move it beyond the
>> ridiculous, childish, personal attacks, I'm again listing several of
>>the substantive advantages claimed for the Mac 26M. In considering the
>>advantages of any boat, the elements of comfort, safety, suitability for
>>the intended applications and environment, are all valid issues, IMO.
>>In addition, the element of time is of substantial importance. So, I
>>have added a sixth relating to its ability to conserve the precious,
>>limited amount of time each of us has to enjoy the sea, sailing, family
>>outings on the water, etc.
>>
>>
>>the following are five (now six) advantages of the Mac 26M, while
>>recognizing some of its limitations and disadvantages. How about
>>addressing some of these substantive issues, rather than posting more
>>ridiculous, childish personal attacks?
>>
>>Whether or not the Valiant is a "better" boat depends on your particular
>>criteria. With respect to coastal cruising, and sailing and motoring in
>>areas such as the Galveston bay area, the Mac seems to have several
>>advantages.
>>
>>
>>(1) Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
>>to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots, whereas the Valiant,
>>while considered relatively fast, only make around 7-8 knots under
>>power. So, with respect to convenience, and ability to get to a
>>preferred sailing area within a given day or weekend, the MacGregor is a
>>"better" boat. The ability to return to port quickly, ahead of impending
>>weather, is also a safety factor in the Mac.
>>
>>(2) When we sailed the Valiant, there were several channels in the
>>Galveston area that weren't clearly marked and in which we could not
>>maneuver safely at low tide. So, we had to turn back from a preferred
>>anchorage we were trying to reach. In contrast, the dagger board of the
>>MacGregor can be raised incrementally as desired, with a minimum draft
>>of around 18 inches. Again, with respect to its ability to maneuver in
>>shallow or unmarked channels, or to anchor in shallow water, or beach on
>>shore to permit grandkids to play on the sand, the MacGregor is a
>>"better" boat, since the Valiant must be kept in much deeper water and
>>doesn't have the versatility of the Mac for such shallow water activities.
>>
>>I have no doubt that the Valiant has better sailing characteristics,
>>will point higher, and would be more comfortable in heavy weather. - In
>>that sense, it is a "better" boat than the MacGregor (although I
>>understand that the MacGregor can actually plane under sail and may
>>therefore be faster under sail in some conditions).
>>
>>(3) However, if one can't get out to the blue water on weekends because
>>of the requisite hours of motoring time it takes to get from port to the
>>blue water, then the excellent sailing characteristics of the Valiant
>>wouldn't be of much benefit. (With the exception of being able to talk
>>about it on the newsgroup.) Under those circumstances, if I could only
>>get out once or twice a year, it may make more sense to charter a larger
>>boat for extended cruising when I can time off for a week or so.
>>
>>(4) - If the lower hull is compromised along its lowermost centerline,
>>the inner liner, extending 2/3 rd the length of the boat, remains and
>>acts to prevent entry of water into the cockpit. - No,it's not a
>>complete double hull, and yes, it doesn't protect one from side impacts,
>>but it is an added safety factor.
>>
>>(5) If both hulls are compromised, or if the side hull is penetrated as
>>in a collision, the integrated flotation keeps the Mac afloat. By
>>contrast, if the hull of the Valiant (or other keel boats) is
>>compromised, or if the through-hulls leak, or if substantial water
>>enters the boat for some other reason, the keel of the Valiant (and the
>>keel of your boat) will quickly pull it to the bottom. In this respect,
>>the MacGregor is a "better" boat. (Galveston-Houston has its share of
>>drunk red-necks racing around the bays while downing another six-pack.)
>>
>>(6) Regarding the issue of time, and the limited quantity thereof
>>available to most adults, because of its ability to motor to a desired
>>area quickly, or to be trailered to a desired area at 65 mph, the boat
>>provides added versatility in several respects. Unless you don't have
>>to go to work every week or have lots of free time such that you don't
>>worry about spending substantial time motoring out to desired sailing
>>areas, or sailing for several days to another desired sailing area down
>>the coast, the Mac 26M has advantages in that it permits you to get to
>>many areas not otherwise available on a weekend trip, or unless you can
>>spend several weeks sailing to a new port, etc. For example, in our
>>area, this permits one to sail in the Galveston area one weekend, from
>>the Corpus Christi area on another weekend, and from the Rockport area
>>on another, etc. The ability to remove the boat from the water on its
>>trailer also serves to minimize upkeep, marina fees, bottom treatments, etc.
>>
>>Again, an evaluation of the quality of the boat depends on the criteria
>>accepted for the evaluation, and how the boat will be used. My point
>>isn't that the Mac is the greatest boat made for all purposes. It's
>>rather an attempt to bring a little balance to such discussions.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

[Jim Cate]

Veridican wrote:

>>I'm very lucky to be able to get
>>one of the few available this year.
>>
>
>
> I don't know about lucky, but it's true about Macs, you have to wait for them.
> I suppose it's because they're the least expensive 26 footer out there.
>
> Look, most people buy a boat that size and never sail it, so what difference
> does it make what kind of quality it is. It can stand up to rain in the slip or
> driveway as good as any other boat.
>
> My wife and I are day sailors in our 14.5 foot Hunter. But we sail on the ocean
> and we sail all the time. That's what matters.
>
> The Veridican

You make a valid point, Veradican. If they don't sail their boats, what
good does speed and pointing ability do for them?

Jim

[Jim Cate]

otnmbrd wrote:

>
>
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Jeff Morris wrote:
>>
>>> Jim, you're turning into an outright liar now. Its been pointed out
>>> to you that
>>> the "second wall" only covers a portion of the below water surface,
>>> probably
>>> less than half, and this does not include the vulnerable chines.
>>> Frankly, many
>>> boats have integral tanks of some sort - unless they cover most of
>>> the surface
>>> they do not provide the safety factor you're claiming.
>>
>>
>>
>> As discussed in detail above, the water ballast extend for some2/3rds
>> of the length of the vessel and it protects the most vulnerable
>> (lowermost. central) portion fo the hull. Although you may not want
>> to call the extra wall a "double hull," it actually serves the same
>> purpose. - If it walks like a duck, and talks like a ducke....why not
>> call it a duck.
>
>
> Two points:
> 1. A double hull is exactly that (no duck walks allowed) a double hull,
> complete from main deck down around the keel and back to the main deck,
> pointy end to blunt end. In boats, this is an important distinction.
> A double bottom hull is an inner an outer hull from the fwd
> perpendicular to the after perpendicular, for the full width of the bottom.
> From what I see of the pictures and drawings, your Mac doesn't qualify
> for either, unless your a salesman..
>
> 2. Three hundred pounds of permanent ballast, is meaningless, unless you
> know how it relates to the vessels initial stability, and since
> stability seems to be an issue, I'd suggest you learn what this is,
> before you claim it as a positive.
>
> In following this thread, the one factor I'm seeing is a very
> inexperienced boater, with a great need of education in many areas.
>
>


Gee, I scored 98 on the test given in the ASA basic sailing course,
which I took as a review last month with my wife. - Better tell them
that they obviously made a mistake. But I do agree that the "double
hull" issue (whether to call it a double hull or not, and whether it
provides some of the same benefits) is something of a side issue.

Actually, the discussion seems to have veered off from the topic, and
many of the recent notes are no more than vindictive, personal attacks,
and getting more so by the hour. (Of course, if one doesn't have
anything substantive to say in the first place......)

There has been lots of bickering about side issues, and little
discussion of the underlying thesis posted in the first few notes. -
Which is that both the MacGregor 26M and the Valiant 40 (or other
comparable displacement boats) have good and bad characteristics, and
moreover, each has capabilities that the other doesn't.

The Valiant can sail faster, point higher, and manage heavy seas well,
up to a point. On the other hand, it's difficult to navigate through
shallow waters, poorly kept channels that are shallow or silting, etc.
Its utility is also limited by the fact that it can't sail or motor
faster than its hull speed (unless you are surfing down a large wave.)
The MacGregor, of course, can motor through very shallow water, and
anchor in less than 1.5 feet of water, permitting the grandkids to swim
and enjoy playing in the water. Or, it can be beached, for a picnic, or
motored through shallow bay waters.

One of the more significant advantages of the MacGregor 26M is the fact
that it addresses one of the most basic human limitations, limited time.
Most of us work for a living, and most of us have many other
responsibilities vying for our limited free time. In this respect, the
Mac has it all over the Valiant. - As previously mentioned, in our
region in the Galveston Bay area northwest of Galveston, it takes around
four hours to motor from the marinas to the ship channel and down to
Galveston, and even more time to get out to the blue water. (There are
very few marinas located near the Gulf, and 99% of boat owners leave
their boats in the many marinas in Kemah or Seabrook.) In contrast, the
Mac can get from our marinas to the blue water far more quickly, making
it feasible to get out to blue water sailing in less than two hours. In
one day one can motor down, sail, visit Galveston restaurants and shops
if desired, and then return to the Kemah marinas. Thus, time limitations
relative to weekend sailing are substantially overcome. Similarly, the
design of the boat makes it possible to motor out to other portions of
the bays quickly, and sail, fish, swim, picnic, etc., and then return,
in one afternoon. Again, time limitations experienced with larger boats
are substantially mitigated.

Also, although 99% of the displacement sailboats in our area seldom
leave the bay, the Mac permits sailing in an entirely different part of
the the State, several hundred miles away, because it can be
conveniently trailered to the desired area. - Again, time limitations
are overcome, and a variety of new sailing areas are made conveniently
available.

Of course, you can say that you don't care about time limitations, and
that you would rather have a large displacement boat despite its
shortcomings. However, the fact remains that most of the owners of
displacement boats in this area that I have spoken with tell me that
they seldom find the time to take their boats out, and almost never have
time to take them out to the blue water. My own conclusion is that it's
better to sail slightly slower, and point slightly farther off, then to
seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:

"I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
interesting things...."

Instead of:

"Well I didn't have time to go sailing this weekend, but I COULD
HAVE, and if I did have the time, I COULD HAVE sailed faster and
pointed higher than you."


Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
are closed.

Jim

otn
>

[Scott Vernon]

Jim, you are the funniest thing to hit this NG for a long time. Thanks for
the laughs.

SV

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.
> >
> I agree that the discussion seems to have veered off from the topic,
> and that many of the recent notes are no more than vindictive, personal
> attacks, and getting more so by the hour. (Of course, if you don't
> have anything substantive to say in the first place......)
>
> There has been lots of bickering about side issues, and little
> discussion of the underlying thesis. - Which is, that both the MacGregor
> 26M and the Valiant 40 (or other comparable displacement boats) have
> good and bad characteristics, and each has capabilities that the other
> doesn't.
>
> The Valiant can sail faster, point higher, and manage heavy seas well,
> up to a point. On the other hand, it's difficult to navigate through
> shallow waters, poorly kept channels that are shallow or silting, etc.
> Its utility is also limited by the fact that it can't sail or motor
> faster than its hull speed (unless you are surfing down a large wave.)
> The MacGregor, of course, can motor through very shallow water, and
> anchor in less than 1.5 feet of water, permitting the grandkids to swim
> and enjoy playing in the water. Or, it can be beached, for a picnic, or
> motored through shallow bay waters.
>
> One of the more significant advantages of the MacGregor 26M is the fact
> that it addresses one of the most basic human limitations, limited time.
> Most of us work for a living, and most of us have many other
> responsibilities vying for our limited free time. In this respect, the
> Mac has it all over the Valiant. - As previously mentioned, in our
> region in the Galveston Bay area northwest of Galveston, it takes around
> four hours to motor from the marinas to the ship channel and down to
> Galveston, and even more time to get out to the blue water. (There are
> very few marinas located near the Gulf, and 99% of boat owners leave
> their boats in the many marinas in Kemah or Seabrook.) In contrast, the
> Mac can get from our marinas to the blue water far more quickly, making
> it feasible to get out to blue water sailing in less than two hours. In
> one day one can motor down, sail, visit Galveston restaurants and shops
> if desired, and then return to the Kemah marinas. Thus, time limitations
> relative to weekend sailing are substantially overcome. Similarly, the
> design of the boat makes it possible to motor out to other portions of
> the bays quickly, and sail, fish, swim, picnic, etc., and then return,
> in one afternoon. Again, time limitations experienced with larger boats
> are substantially mitigated.
>
> Also, although 99% of the displacement sailboats in our area seldom
> leave the bay, the Mac permits sailing in an entirely different part of
> the the State, several hundred miles away, because it can be
> conveniently trailered to the desired area. - Again, time limitations
> are overcome, and a variety of new sailing areas are made conveniently
> available.
>
> Of course, you can say that you don't care about time limitations, and
> that you would rather have a large displacement boat despite its
> shortcomings. However, the fact remains that most of the owners of
> displacement boats in this area that I have spoken with tell me that
> they seldom find the time to take their boats out, and almost never have
> time to take them out to the blue water. My own conclusion is that it's
> better to sail slightly slower, and point slightly farther off, then to
> seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:
>
> "I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
> interesting things...."
>
> Instead of:
>
> "Well I didn't have time to go sailing this weekend, but I COULD
> HAVE, and if I did have the time, I COULD HAVE sailed faster and
> pointed higher than you."
>
>
> Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
> conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
> judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
> advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
> obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
> are closed.
>
> Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

sane people would rather sail a Valiant 40 once a month than a MacGregor
26Mx every day.

Scotty


"Jimbo Mac" > wrote ...
> seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:
>
> "I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
> interesting things...."
>
> Instead of:
>
> "Well I didn't have time to go sailing this weekend, but I COULD
> HAVE, and if I did have the time, I COULD HAVE sailed faster and
> pointed higher than you."
>
>
> Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
> conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
> judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
> advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
> obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
> are closed.
>
> Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

How can he say that when he's never driven a Mac26x?

jimbo's a Mac basher, just like the rest of us.

SV


"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> > However, there
> > were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.
>
> What things on the 26x didn't you like?
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
> cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
> designed for.

and you believed them??????

>My
> own dealer has told me that the boat is perfectly suitable for sailing
> offshore, and the he wouldn't hesitate to take it offshore.


BWaaaaaaaaHahahahahahahahhahahahahahahaha


> (if you are really Roger MacGregor, that is)


What a maroon!

[Jonathan Ganz]

In your case, it wouldn't matter either way.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Veridican wrote:
>
> >>I'm very lucky to be able to get
> >>one of the few available this year.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't know about lucky, but it's true about Macs, you have to wait for
them.
> > I suppose it's because they're the least expensive 26 footer out there.
> >
> > Look, most people buy a boat that size and never sail it, so what
difference
> > does it make what kind of quality it is. It can stand up to rain in the
slip or
> > driveway as good as any other boat.
> >
> > My wife and I are day sailors in our 14.5 foot Hunter. But we sail on
the ocean
> > and we sail all the time. That's what matters.
> >
> > The Veridican
>
> You make a valid point, Veradican. If they don't sail their boats, what
> good does speed and pointing ability do for them?
>
> Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> what
> good does speed and pointing ability do for them?

he just doesn't get it.

[Jonathan Ganz]

Right.. I lost. You won... that piece of crap. BTW, who is PC and what is
Practial Saior?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > You're rather typical of Mac owners... stupid.
>
> As I thought, you didn't want to answer that one. In other words, you
> lost that one, didn't you Ganz. And as usual, you aren't willing to
> admit it.
>
> Hun
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You're full of it. The Valient has a host of great sailing
and construction pluses. The Mac has NONE of these.
The Mac is garbage, which isn't fit to sink in the wake
of a Valient, even though it likely would at the very
first opportunity.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.

I agree also.

> I agree

The other limitation being that it appeals to the uniformed
or generally stupid. You WIN!

> One of the more significant advantages of the MacGregor 26M is the fact
> that it addresses one of the most basic human limitations, limited time.

Yeah, on a trailer.

> Also, although 99% of the displacement sailboats in our area seldom
> leave the bay, the Mac permits sailing in an entirely different part of
> the the State, several hundred miles away, because it can be
> conveniently trailered to the desired area. - Again, time limitations
> are overcome, and a variety of new sailing areas are made conveniently
> available.

I sail at least 5 times every two weeks. I don't know what you claim
or what you think when your meds wear off.

> "I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
> interesting things...."
>
> Instead of:

You got that right. It sinks quickly and the idiots feel they have to
get another one. That's definitely good for the economy.

> Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
> conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
> judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
> advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
> obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
> are closed.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Is it possible to sail one everyday... I doubt they would
last for more than a week of the rough treatment.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> sane people would rather sail a Valiant 40 once a month than a MacGregor
> 26Mx every day.
>
> Scotty
>
>
> "Jimbo Mac" > wrote ...
> > seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:
> >
> > "I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
> > interesting things...."
> >
> > Instead of:
> >
> > "Well I didn't have time to go sailing this weekend, but I COULD
> > HAVE, and if I did have the time, I COULD HAVE sailed faster and
> > pointed higher than you."
> >
> >
> > Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
> > conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
> > judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
> > advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
> > obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
> > are closed.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Yeah, and all of them carried over to the M. More garbage, slightly
different look. You're just a liar or incredibly stupid. Who types for
you, your mommy?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > More likely it'll be never, since you're not a sailor... probably
> > never sailed in your life.
> >
> > I think you're the one who's stressed. You bought that piece
> > of garbage without knowing what you're getting into.
>
> Actually, no. I had sailed various Macs and followed their development
> over the years as different models were introduced. However, there were
> several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like. The the 26M has
> corrected them, for the first time.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You wanna buy a bridge?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger MacGregor wrote:
>
> > Mr Cate, if you will read the fine brochure put out by my writers you
> > will see that we do not recommend taking a Mac 26 M Powersailer out to
> > 'blue water'. For your own safety DO NOT sail or motor a Mac 26 M
> > powersailer more than 3 miles offshore. You have been warned, in front
> > of many witnesses. Any injuries, deaths, or losses due to a Mac 26 M
> > Powersailer past the 3 mile limit will be your own damn fault. We ARE
> > NOT responsible for your boat!
> >
> > Roger MacGregor
>
> In that case, you need to correct those on your staff who respond to
> inquiries from those of us who call and request information about your
> boats. When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
> cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
> designed for. They have assured me that it is a great boat in which to
> sail or motor out to Catalina island (25 miles out). And the water
> between the California coast and Catalina island is certainly blue. My
> own dealer has told me that the boat is perfectly suitable for sailing
> offshore, and the he wouldn't hesitate to take it offshore. Also, I
> have made it clear to him several times that that's what I intend to do.
> Another dealer I spoke with said the same thing and told me that he
> had sailed Macs offshore many times, sailed to the Bahamas 12 times, and
> would not hesitate to do it again. I also note that there is absolutely
> NOTHING in your literature (if you are really Roger MacGregor, that is)
> warning your customers not to take their boats more than three miles
> offshore.
>
> In other words, you are either a troll, or if not, MacGregor has some
> serious legal liability issues.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> >
> >>
> >>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I don't usually agree with you, but on this we're on the
> >>>same page.
> >>>
> >>
> >>John, if you're your really that stressed out, remember that you don't
> >>have to read any of my notes at all if you don't want to. - Just press
> >>your down arrow and skip right on by them. - It may be several weeks
> >>before I can get out to the blue water on my Mac, and by skipping by my
> >>notes, you can get pretty much the same effect as you might if I were
> >>lost at sea.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

When you have an iq as low as he does, I'm not astonished by this.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Cate" > wrote
> > what
> > good does speed and pointing ability do for them?
>
> he just doesn't get it.
>
>

[Horvath]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:33:32 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
> wrote this crap:

>Right.. I lost. You won... that piece of crap. BTW, who is PC and what is
>Practial Saior?


Not you, Jon-boy.






Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Horvath]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 03:52:07 +0100, "Wally" >
wrote this crap:

>Jim Cate wrote:
>
>> However, there
>> were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.
>
>What things on the 26x didn't you like?


Lack of storage for beer and rum.





Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Horvath]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:46:01 -0700, "Jon-boy Ganz"
> wrote this crap:

>When you have an iq as low as he does, I'm not astonished by this.


Maybe when you grow up, you'll have an IQ just as high, Jon-boy.






Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Horvath]

On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:24:49 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
> wrote this crap:

>sane people would rather sail a Valiant 40 once a month than a MacGregor
>26Mx every day.


Sane people would rather spend a month in jail, than sail a MacGregor
for one day.




Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Jonathan Ganz]

Don't worry Horass. We know you're not smart enough to
get it. You can go back to winning fags. I mean flags.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:46:01 -0700, "Jon-boy Ganz"
> > wrote this crap:
>
> >When you have an iq as low as he does, I'm not astonished by this.
>
>
> Maybe when you grow up, you'll have an IQ just as high, Jon-boy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Jonathan Ganz]

That's right Horass! I don't know anyone named PC and
I've never heard of Practial Saior. Is the latter your boyfriend?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 20:33:32 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
> > wrote this crap:
>
> >Right.. I lost. You won... that piece of crap. BTW, who is PC and what is
> >Practial Saior?
>
>
> Not you, Jon-boy.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

And normal people stay the hell away from hunters and
fags. I mean flags.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 16 Apr 2004 23:24:49 -0400, "Scott Vernon"
> > wrote this crap:
>
> >sane people would rather sail a Valiant 40 once a month than a MacGregor
> >26Mx every day.
>
>
> Sane people would rather spend a month in jail, than sail a MacGregor
> for one day.
>
>
>
>
> Screw the rules! They're more like guidelines, anyways.

[Jim Cate]

felton wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree...
>>
>>But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
>>size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
>> And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
>>bottom of the ocean.
>>
>>Jim
>
>
> While there have been reports of Valiants being rolled, none have ever
> gone to the bottom. Why you persist in claiming that the Mac is a
> more seaworthy boat has to be the most absurd thing ever posted in
> this group, and that is really saying something.
>

Where did I state that I thought the Mac is a more seaworthy boat than
the Valiant?

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> Jim, you are the funniest thing to hit this NG for a long time. Thanks for
> the laughs.
>


In other words, you can't come up with a substantve response to my note.
Is that what you're trying to tell us, Scott?

Jim




> SV
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yes. You don't have anything substantive to say.
>>>
>>
>>I agree that the discussion seems to have veered off from the topic,
>>and that many of the recent notes are no more than vindictive, personal
>> attacks, and getting more so by the hour. (Of course, if you don't
>>have anything substantive to say in the first place......)
>>
>>There has been lots of bickering about side issues, and little
>>discussion of the underlying thesis. - Which is, that both the MacGregor
>>26M and the Valiant 40 (or other comparable displacement boats) have
>>good and bad characteristics, and each has capabilities that the other
>>doesn't.
>>
>>The Valiant can sail faster, point higher, and manage heavy seas well,
>>up to a point. On the other hand, it's difficult to navigate through
>>shallow waters, poorly kept channels that are shallow or silting, etc.
>>Its utility is also limited by the fact that it can't sail or motor
>>faster than its hull speed (unless you are surfing down a large wave.)
>>The MacGregor, of course, can motor through very shallow water, and
>>anchor in less than 1.5 feet of water, permitting the grandkids to swim
>>and enjoy playing in the water. Or, it can be beached, for a picnic, or
>>motored through shallow bay waters.
>>
>>One of the more significant advantages of the MacGregor 26M is the fact
>>that it addresses one of the most basic human limitations, limited time.
>> Most of us work for a living, and most of us have many other
>>responsibilities vying for our limited free time. In this respect, the
>>Mac has it all over the Valiant. - As previously mentioned, in our
>>region in the Galveston Bay area northwest of Galveston, it takes around
>> four hours to motor from the marinas to the ship channel and down to
>>Galveston, and even more time to get out to the blue water. (There are
>>very few marinas located near the Gulf, and 99% of boat owners leave
>>their boats in the many marinas in Kemah or Seabrook.) In contrast, the
>>Mac can get from our marinas to the blue water far more quickly, making
>>it feasible to get out to blue water sailing in less than two hours. In
>>one day one can motor down, sail, visit Galveston restaurants and shops
>>if desired, and then return to the Kemah marinas. Thus, time limitations
>>relative to weekend sailing are substantially overcome. Similarly, the
>>design of the boat makes it possible to motor out to other portions of
>>the bays quickly, and sail, fish, swim, picnic, etc., and then return,
>>in one afternoon. Again, time limitations experienced with larger boats
>>are substantially mitigated.
>>
>>Also, although 99% of the displacement sailboats in our area seldom
>>leave the bay, the Mac permits sailing in an entirely different part of
>>the the State, several hundred miles away, because it can be
>>conveniently trailered to the desired area. - Again, time limitations
>>are overcome, and a variety of new sailing areas are made conveniently
>>available.
>>
>>Of course, you can say that you don't care about time limitations, and
>>that you would rather have a large displacement boat despite its
>>shortcomings. However, the fact remains that most of the owners of
>>displacement boats in this area that I have spoken with tell me that
>>they seldom find the time to take their boats out, and almost never have
>>time to take them out to the blue water. My own conclusion is that it's
>>better to sail slightly slower, and point slightly farther off, then to
>>seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:
>>
>> "I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
>>interesting things...."
>>
>> Instead of:
>>
>> "Well I didn't have time to go sailing this weekend, but I COULD
>>HAVE, and if I did have the time, I COULD HAVE sailed faster and
>>pointed higher than you."
>>
>>
>>Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
>>conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
>>judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
>>advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
>>obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
>>are closed.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> sane people would rather sail a Valiant 40 once a month than a MacGregor
> 26Mx every day.
>
> Scotty


Whatever floats your boat, Scotty. I prefer to sail a MacGregor, and
get out on the water more frequently, AND ALSO sail some of the larger
boats when I want to, by chartering. When I'm through chartering the
larger boat, I leave it, and let the owner take care of the dock fees,
insurance, financing, bottom treatments, engine repairs, rigging
repairs, electronics, sail replacements, etc.

Ever hear about "BOTH AND" instead of "EITHER OR," Scotty?

Jim

>
>
> "Jimbo Mac" > wrote ...
>
>>seldom sail at all. I would rather be able to say:
>>
>> "I went sailing yesterday and really enjoyed it, and did lots of
>>interesting things...."
>>
>> Instead of:
>>
>> "Well I didn't have time to go sailing this weekend, but I COULD
>>HAVE, and if I did have the time, I COULD HAVE sailed faster and
>>pointed higher than you."
>>
>>
>>Whether it is more important to point higher or sail more often and more
>>conveniently and with greater variety is, of course, a personal
>>judgment. But there can be no question that the Mac has significant
>>advantages over most displacement boats, for most users. Clearly,
>>obviously, certainly, and without question, except to those whose minds
>>are closed.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> >>Your boat is an unusual design.
> >
> >
> > No, it a pretty standard design for a crusing catamaran.
>
> As I said, your boat is an unusual design. Only a smallpercentge of
> cruising sailboats are cats.
>

Look around, Jim. Cats may be a minority, but many thousands have been built.
Prout built 5000, and possibly has had more circumnavigations than Valiant; the
French have built even more. Certainly, a lot more money is spent on cruising
cats than tralorable sailboats with 50 hp engines.



>
>
> BTW, you once
> > mentioned the possibility for spending over $50K for this boat.
>
> Its far less than that even fully equipped with 50 hp motor, roller
> reefing, lines led aft, GPS chart plotter, auto steering, vhf, radar, etc.

I didn't mean this particular boat. I meant you implied you were willing to
spend more when you were searching.

>
> For that money,
> > you could have bought a used Gemini 30 or maybe a F27. Shallow draft, speed
> > under power and sail, a LOT more fun.
>
> Lots of used boats here at reasonable prices, but all of them had
> problems.

Sounds like you didn't look at many boats.


> >
> >
> >>Not many on his ng would float after a
> >>collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
> >>down to the bottom.
> >
> >
> > Most of the boats owned by this group would not be holed by a collision. In
> > fact, I've seen a variety of "booboos" but I can't remember one now that put
a
> > boat at serious risk of sinking. (I'm sure one will come to mind.)
However,
> > I've seen a few that if the target had been a Mac, it would have been
chopped in
> > half.
>
> In that unlikely event, the Mac would still float.

Maybe, but in how many pieces? And how far would you grandchildren be
scattered? Remember, drownings don't happen from sinking (according to the
statistics), the happen from capsizing and falling off of unstable boats. You
keep solving the problems that don't exist.


....
> >
> > You seem to be very concerned with 30 foot breaking waves.
>
> Not really.
>
> You need
> > professional help, not a boat.
>
> Actually, I rather thing that anyone who DOESN'T take such weather
> conditions seriously, and prepare for them, is the one who needs
> professional help.

Oh, yes, Jim, you're prepared all right!

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> You're full of it. The Valient has a host of great sailing
> and construction pluses. The Mac has NONE of these.
> The Mac is garbage, which isn't fit to sink in the wake
> of a Valient, even though it likely would at the very
> first opportunity.
>

Actually, you again have got it all wrong, Johnathan. Wrong again!

Contrary to your note, I'm actually a great admirer of the Valiant,
having sailed one for a week along the Texas coast. It's probably the
best handling and best performing boat of its size that I have sailed. -
We were routinely making over 9 knots in around 15-knot winds, with the
main, staysail, and jib deployed. The boat had all lines led aft
including multiple reefing lines led to the cockpit so that you could
easily set the main at a particular desired reefing point from the
cockpit. The boat had a canoe stern which enhanced its speed and was a
safety factor in the event of large following seas. So, I'm totally sold
on the Valiant.

Regarding the comparison with the Mac 26M, however, as has been
overwhelmingly demonstrated to anyone willing to read the notes with an
open mind (this doesn't include you, of course), the Mac has a number of
advantages and capabilities that the Valiant doesn't have and never
will. For most sailors who work for a living, the Mac addresses the
issue of time, and the limited amount each of us has, far more
intelligently than the Valiant.

Get a grip on yourself Johnny. - You are obviously loosing it, and you
seem to be getting worse with each passing day.

Jim

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
> They have assured me that it is a great boat in which to
> sail or motor out to Catalina island (25 miles out).

Perhaps you should look at a map, Jim. Catalina is somewhat closer than 25 miles
from the mainland - its more like 18 miles. Perhaps it just feels like 25 miles
in a Mac.

> My
> own dealer has told me that the boat is perfectly suitable for sailing
> offshore, and the he wouldn't hesitate to take it offshore.

Is that when he offered to take you out on his boat? What, he doesn't actually
have one himself? That's odd!



> I also note that there is absolutely
> NOTHING in your literature (if you are really Roger MacGregor, that is)
> warning your customers not to take their boats more than three miles
> offshore.

This is why Roger MacGregor said, "The 26 was designed for typical small
cruising boat use-inland waters and limited coastal sailing." By "limited," I
think he's saying one should stay close to safe refuge, and watch the weather
very, very carefully. Note that he didn't use the word "cruising" which implies
longer voyages.


>
> In other words, you are either a troll, or if not, MacGregor has some
> serious legal liability issues.

Maybe that's why his literature seems to have more disclaimers than the rest of
the boating industry combined.

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> You've mention a "storm anchor" and a "storm jib" several times now. How much
> gear do you intend to carry?
How many anchors, what kind of rodes? You realize
> that every 100 pounds is a knot off the speed (so says Roger),

Jeff, in a 26-foot boat weighing 3,500 pounds having a normal sail area
of around 300 sq. feet, you don't need a big, heavy storm anchor or a
big, heavy storm jib. They don't weigh very much or take up much space.
(There are storage compartments throughout the boat, incidentally.)

do you really
> think you'll be any faster under power than a Cat 30 loaded down with this
> stuff?

Maybe. Maybe not. I expect the boat to make good time motoring under
moderate wind contitions, permitting it to motor back before most heavy
weather.
>
> BTW, what kind of storm jib are you going to use with the roller furling jib?

> Are you really going to crawl up to the bow offshore in a chop to swap jibs, or
> even to set a storm anchor?

The furling jib would have to be taken down and replaced early, before
conditions were excessive. Regarding crawling up on the bow, the Mac
26M has provides access to the jib through the hatch located near the
bow, in which you can stand or sit on the V-berth and reach the jib
through the hatch. It gives slightly better footing than trying to walk
forward topside.

Obviously, this is a small boat, and it would be foolhardy to sail out
in blue water in potentially severe conditions without reefing down
early, motoring back early if unusually severe conditions were
anticipated, and putting a storm jib or storm anchor out early if
necessary.

Jim

>
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>Veridican wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You can sail the Mac 75 miles off shore. A guy went around the world in a 23
>>>foot boat (see the movie The Dove). You can sail any boat 75 miles off
>
> shore.
>
>>>But everyone wants to act like one boat is better in a storm than another
>
> boat.
>
>>>BS. If I were 75 miles off shore and got into a squall in a Mac, like I
>
> would
>
>>>with any damn boat, I'd lower the sails and run with it. Or I'd roll out
>
> just a
>
>>>little jib and try to keep head to wind.
>>
>>I think I would put down the sails and deploy a storm anchor, to keep
>>the bow facing windward. t
>>
>>
>>
>>>I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40 is
>>>better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?
>>>
>>>Any 26 ft boat should sail the coast line (5-10 miles off shore), not cross
>
> the
>
>>>ocean. But if you don't get hit by a storm, it really doesn't matter, does
>
> it?
>
>>>The Veridican
>>
>>If you were only 5-10 miles offshore and were sailing a Mac with a 50Hp
>>motor, you could probably motor in before the storm reached you.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Where did you state that you were the biggest idiot to
visit this ng since 1997?
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> felton wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>I agree...
> >>
> >>But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
> >>size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
> >> And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
> >>bottom of the ocean.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >
> >
> > While there have been reports of Valiants being rolled, none have ever
> > gone to the bottom. Why you persist in claiming that the Mac is a
> > more seaworthy boat has to be the most absurd thing ever posted in
> > this group, and that is really saying something.
> >
>
> Where did I state that I thought the Mac is a more seaworthy boat than
> the Valiant?
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I don't mean to speak for Scott, but what he's trying to tell you
is that you're stupid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > Jim, you are the funniest thing to hit this NG for a long time. Thanks
for
> > the laughs.
> >
>
>
> In other words, you can't come up with a substantve response to my note.
> Is that what you're trying to tell us, Scott?
>
> Jim

[Jonathan Ganz]

Actually, you're an idiot MacBoy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > You're full of it. The Valient has a host of great sailing
> > and construction pluses. The Mac has NONE of these.
> > The Mac is garbage, which isn't fit to sink in the wake
> > of a Valient, even though it likely would at the very
> > first opportunity.
> >
>
> Actually, you again have got it all wrong, Johnathan. Wrong again!

[Jonathan Ganz]

It would be an endless journey on a Mac.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jeff Morris" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > They have assured me that it is a great boat in which to
> > sail or motor out to Catalina island (25 miles out).
>
> Perhaps you should look at a map, Jim. Catalina is somewhat closer than 25
miles
> from the mainland - its more like 18 miles. Perhaps it just feels like 25
miles
> in a Mac.

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> That's right Horass! I don't know anyone named PC and
> I've never heard of Practial Saior. Is the latter your boyfriend?

John, let someone else explain it to you.

I'm responding to some 20 irate, irrational asa contributors who are
obviously getting more and more stressed out as they realize that they
haven't been able to put me down or drive me away, and probably won't.
For obvious reasons, I sometimes don't have the time to check spelling
and grammar.

Your problem is understandable, John. - A Mac enthusiast still here and
still going strong after all those attacks! Think about it. - You are
being reduced to sputtering and snarling and posting more and more
childish, senseless, non substantive personal attacks and insults. Think
of how this makes you look to readers around the world! Do you have no
self respect whatsoever? (Have you considered getting professional help
John?)

By the way, it should be pointed out that there are others on the ng who
seem to be fairly rational, even human, and from whom I get helpful
information from time to time.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> When you have an iq as low as he does, I'm not astonished by this.


Interesting. From all the objective tests I've taken, my IQ is above
average. With respect to sailing know-how, I recently took the ASA basic
sailing course again as a review and scored 98. My supervisor and
professional colleagues seem to be reasonably satisfied with my work.
Sounds like it's only in your opinion, and that of a few of your
buddies, that I have a problem, John.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>However, there
>>were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.
>
>
> What things on the 26x didn't you like?


I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)

I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
versatility for motoring without the water ballast.

I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability. The new
deep-V hull is more efficient going through chop under power, and has
good sailing characteristics, according to owners with whom I have
spoken. (It is reported as loosing a little in top speed under power,
which I can accept in view of the more comfortable and stable ride in
heavy weather.)

The interior of the 26x seemed cramped to me, and the seating was
somewhat uncomfortable. The new boat is more roomy, more pleasant, and
more comfortable, in my opinion.

Does that answer your question? Or were you hoping to get another answer.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>> When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
>>cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
>>designed for.
>
>
> and you believed them??????

Scott, you obviously don't get it. The point in this particular exchange
isn't whether the boat is suitable for blue water sailing, it's whether
the note purportedly posted by Roger MacGregor was a farce. (Which it
obviously was.) My response pointed out that MacGregor reps and
MacGregor dealers are promoting the boat as a coastal cruiser capable of
going off-shore, and that nothing in their literature warns that the
boat shouldn't be taken out beyond a three mile limit. So, had the note
actually been posted by Roger, it would have been an admission that he
had some serious legal problems. (Incidentally, whoever posted the note
assuming Roger's identity on a public forum may indeed have some legal
issues.)

You're rather slow, aren't you Scotty? I suggest that you take the time
to read the notes more carefully and give it a little thought before you
barge in and waste everyone's time with off-topic remarks like those.

Jim



>
>
>

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
> hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
> board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
> with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
> to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
> kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)

Although I generally prefer the daggerboard, the ability to shift the CLF
(Center of Lateral Resistance) aft is very handy.


>
> I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
> The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
> versatility for motoring without the water ballast.

The permanent ballast was required because the V hull raised the Center of
Gravity too much.


>
> I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
> throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability.

Meaning the new hull will not plane as easily.

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Where did you state that you were the biggest idiot to
> visit this ng since 1997?

In other words, you don't have a substantive response to my note. Is
that what you were trying to say, Johathan?

As sicsussed in detail elsewhere, I am a major enthusiast regarding
Valiant boats, for a number of reasons. They are a great blue water boat.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Actually, you're an idiot MacBoy.

What does that comment add to the discussion, Johnny? It only serves to
remind everyone that you are getting more and more stressed out, less
and less under control, and totally incapable adding anything of
substance to the discussion. You apparently have no self-respect whatsoever.

Get a grip on yourself, John. (Also, have you thought further about my
suggestion that you could benefit from some professional help?)

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>>Your boat is an unusual design.
>>>
>>>
>>>No, it a pretty standard design for a crusing catamaran.
>>
>>As I said, your boat is an unusual design. Only a smallpercentge of
>>cruising sailboats are cats.
>>
>
>
> Look around, Jim. Cats may be a minority, but many thousands have been built.
> Prout built 5000, and possibly has had more circumnavigations than Valiant; the
> French have built even more. Certainly, a lot more money is spent on cruising
> cats than tralorable sailboats with 50 hp engines.



I'll certainly admit that they cost more than what I'm spending on the Mac.

I don't question that they are fast, roomy, and exciting boats. I was
only pointing out that your flotation system was not usually found on
the great majority of ocean sailing boats.


Jim>
>
>
>
>>
>> BTW, you once
>>
>>>mentioned the possibility for spending over $50K for this boat.
>>
>>Its far less than that even fully equipped with 50 hp motor, roller
>>reefing, lines led aft, GPS chart plotter, auto steering, vhf, radar, etc.
>
>
> I didn't mean this particular boat. I meant you implied you were willing to
> spend more when you were searching.
>
>
>>For that money,
>>
>>>you could have bought a used Gemini 30 or maybe a F27. Shallow draft, speed
>>>under power and sail, a LOT more fun.
>>
>>Lots of used boats here at reasonable prices, but all of them had
>>problems.
>
>
> Sounds like you didn't look at many boats.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>Not many on his ng would float after a
>>>>collision. - In most of them, the lead keel would quickly drag the boat
>>>>down to the bottom.
>>>
>>>
>>>Most of the boats owned by this group would not be holed by a collision. In
>>>fact, I've seen a variety of "booboos" but I can't remember one now that put
>
> a
>
>>>boat at serious risk of sinking. (I'm sure one will come to mind.)
>
> However,
>
>>>I've seen a few that if the target had been a Mac, it would have been
>
> chopped in
>
>>>half.
>>
>>In that unlikely event, the Mac would still float.
>
>
> Maybe, but in how many pieces? And how far would you grandchildren be
> scattered? Remember, drownings don't happen from sinking (according to the
> statistics), the happen from capsizing and falling off of unstable boats. You
> keep solving the problems that don't exist.
>
>
> ...
>
>>>You seem to be very concerned with 30 foot breaking waves.
>>
>>Not really.
>>
>>You need
>>
>>>professional help, not a boat.
>>
>>Actually, I rather thing that anyone who DOESN'T take such weather
>>conditions seriously, and prepare for them, is the one who needs
>>professional help.
>
>
> Oh, yes, Jim, you're prepared all right!
>
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > Jim, you are the funniest thing to hit this NG for a long time. Thanks
for
> > the laughs.
>
>
> In other words, you can't come up with a substantve response to my note.
> Is that what you're trying to tell us, Scott?

Not very humorous. C'mon, try harder.

SV

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>
> Whatever floats your boat, Scotty.

water

> I prefer to sail a MacGregor,

You're not sane


> get out on the water more frequently,

you'll love stepping and unstepping the mast, re-rigging & de-rigging,
launching, etc., etc., each time.



> > insurance, financing, bottom treatments, engine repairs, rigging
> repairs, electronics, sail replacements, etc.


No insurance on your Mac? No bottom paint? That 50 hp WILL need maitnance.
No rigging, electronics, or sails on your macM?????



> Ever hear about "BOTH AND" instead of "EITHER OR," Scotty?


No, ever heard about ''IF ONLY'' , jimmy?

SV

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> Obviously, this is a small boat, and it would be foolhardy to sail


That's what we've been trying to tell you.


> in potentially severe conditions

it's always potentially severe conditions, you lubber.

SV

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote

..>The boat had a canoe stern which enhanced its speed and was a
> safety factor in the event of large following seas.

jimmy, stick to one troll at a time, please.


>
> For most sailors who work for a living, the Mac addresses the
> issue of time, and the limited amount each of us has, far more
> intelligently than the Valiant.


BwaaaaaHaahaha Oh yeah that was a good one!!!!!!!!!!

SV

[Scott Vernon]

check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.

SV


"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> Scott, you obviously don't get it. The point in this particular exchange
> isn't whether the boat is suitable for blue water sailing, it's whether
> the note purportedly posted by Roger MacGregor was a farce. (Which it
> obviously was.)

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >> When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
> >>cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
> >>designed for.
> >
> >
> > and you believed them??????
>
> My response pointed out that MacGregor reps and
> MacGregor dealers are promoting the boat as a coastal cruiser capable of
> going off-shore,

and you believe them??????

___yes

___no

[John Cairns]

> wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:48:26 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:

> >26M has provides access to the jib through the hatch located near the
> >bow, in which you can stand or sit on the V-berth and reach the jib
> >through the hatch. It gives slightly better footing than trying to walk
> >forward topside.
> >
>
> Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious
reasons.
>
> BB

You better explain why this is, I don't think "jim" understands the concept
of waves and where they might end up.
John Cairns

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> ... Or were you hoping to get another answer.

What sort of 'other answer' do you think I was hoping for?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Horvath]

On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:11:31 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
> wrote this crap:

>I don't mean to speak for Scott, but what he's trying to tell you
>is that you're stupid.


And when it comes to stupidity, Jon-boy, you're the expert.




This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

[Jeff Morris]

"John Cairns" > wrote in message
...
> > Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious
> reasons.
> >
> > BB
>
> You better explain why this is, I don't think "jim" understands the concept
> of waves and where they might end up.

This is one of those lessons that has to be learned the hard way. It seems so
easy to understand that forward hatches must be kept shut, but it only really
sinks in after you see 6 inches of water on top of the bunk you have to sleep in
that night.

Last summer we had serious green water all the way to the dodger for the first
time. Fortunately I anticipated it - we were exiting the Cape Cod Canal on a 5
knot current against a 20 knot breeze - and was able to convince my wife that
*all* hatches must be sealed. We rode up and over the first two big square
waves (about 5-6 footers) but dove through the 8 footer before being squirted
out into Cape Cod Bay. My wife was in the cabin below and freaked when she saw
6 inches of water over her head!

I've wondered how a mac would handle this. With a good hand on the wheel, it
should be able to blast through; but get twisted a bit in the first wave ...

[Jonathan Ganz]

It sounds like you don't know anything about IQ tests. 101 is "above
average," 98 means nothing, being reasonably satisfied is a euphemism
for not finding an excuse to fire you, it is for sure my opinion, I don't
speak for others, and you do have a problem MacBoy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > When you have an iq as low as he does, I'm not astonished by this.
>
>
> Interesting. From all the objective tests I've taken, my IQ is above
> average. With respect to sailing know-how, I recently took the ASA basic
> sailing course again as a review and scored 98. My supervisor and
> professional colleagues seem to be reasonably satisfied with my work.
> Sounds like it's only in your opinion, and that of a few of your
> buddies, that I have a problem, John.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Wow. 20 people tell you you'll full of sh*t and you don't
believe them. Well, you've got a lot of undeserved self-esteem.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > That's right Horass! I don't know anyone named PC and
> > I've never heard of Practial Saior. Is the latter your boyfriend?
>
> John, let someone else explain it to you.
>
> I'm responding to some 20 irate, irrational asa contributors who are
> obviously getting more and more stressed out as they realize that they
> haven't been able to put me down or drive me away, and probably won't.
> For obvious reasons, I sometimes don't have the time to check spelling
> and grammar.
>
> Your problem is understandable, John. - A Mac enthusiast still here and
> still going strong after all those attacks! Think about it. - You are
> being reduced to sputtering and snarling and posting more and more
> childish, senseless, non substantive personal attacks and insults. Think
> of how this makes you look to readers around the world! Do you have no
> self respect whatsoever? (Have you considered getting professional help
> John?)
>
> By the way, it should be pointed out that there are others on the ng who
> seem to be fairly rational, even human, and from whom I get helpful
> information from time to time.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

So, you admit that you lied?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Where did you state that you were the biggest idiot to
> > visit this ng since 1997?
>
> In other words, you don't have a substantive response to my note. Is
> that what you were trying to say, Johathan?
>
> As sicsussed in detail elsewhere, I am a major enthusiast regarding
> Valiant boats, for a number of reasons. They are a great blue water boat.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I defer to you on being an expert on stupidity.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 08:11:31 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
> > wrote this crap:
>
> >I don't mean to speak for Scott, but what he's trying to tell you
> >is that you're stupid.
>
>
> And when it comes to stupidity, Jon-boy, you're the expert.
>
>
>
>
> This signature is now the ultimate power in the universe

[Jonathan Ganz]

MacBoy,

Add to the discussion?? How could one possibly have a discussion
with an idiot... at least not for very long.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Actually, you're an idiot MacBoy.
>
> What does that comment add to the discussion, Johnny? It only serves to
> remind everyone that you are getting more and more stressed out, less
> and less under control, and totally incapable adding anything of
> substance to the discussion. You apparently have no self-respect
whatsoever.
>
> Get a grip on yourself, John. (Also, have you thought further about my
> suggestion that you could benefit from some professional help?)
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Sure he does... he's always running away!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"John Cairns" > wrote in message
...
>
> > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:48:26 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
> > >26M has provides access to the jib through the hatch located near the
> > >bow, in which you can stand or sit on the V-berth and reach the jib
> > >through the hatch. It gives slightly better footing than trying to walk
> > >forward topside.
> > >
> >
> > Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious
> reasons.
> >
> > BB
>
> You better explain why this is, I don't think "jim" understands the
concept
> of waves and where they might end up.
> John Cairns
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Horvath" > wrote
>
> >I don't mean to speak for Scott, but what he's trying to tell you
> >is that you're stupid.
>
>
> And when it comes to stupidity, Jon-boy, you're the expert.


so you are saying he's right.

good boy, horvy.

[Navigator]

Reads more like a stupid bustard.

Cheers MC


OzOne wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Cate >
> scribbled thusly:
>
>
>>
>>Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I agree...
>>
>>But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
>>size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
>> And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
>>bottom of the ocean.
>>
>>Jim
>>
>
> Bwaaahahahahahahahahahhahaaa!
> Who is this turkey?
>
>
> Oz1...of the 3 twins.
>
> I welcome you to crackerbox palace,We've been expecting you.

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>>
>>Whatever floats your boat, Scotty.
>
>
> water
>
>
>>I prefer to sail a MacGregor,
>
>
> You're not sane
>
>
>
>>get out on the water more frequently,
>
>
> you'll love stepping and unstepping the mast, re-rigging & de-rigging,
> launching, etc., etc., each time.

The plan is to leave the boat in a gated boat storage area that has
access to the water. The mast would be left up.
>
>
>
>>>insurance, financing, bottom treatments, engine repairs, rigging
>>
>>repairs, electronics, sail replacements, etc.
>
>
>
> No insurance on your Mac?

About $400 per year. (What I meant was that I wouldn't be paying
insurance on the larger, charter boats.


No bottom paint?

Nope. Not needed if the boat is sitting on the trailor when not in the
water.

That 50 hp WILL need maitnance.

Right. About $200 per year?

> No rigging, electronics, or sails on your macM?????

Yes, I'll have to keep up the sails, rigging, electronics, etc. But when
you have only 300 sq ft of sails, and light, simple rigging, it's more
manageable.
>
>
>
>
>>Ever hear about "BOTH AND" instead of "EITHER OR," Scotty?
>
>
>
> No, ever heard about ''IF ONLY'' , jimmy?
>
> SV

Yes, I think I have. You are saying: "IF ONLY I had bought a Mac 26M....."?


Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> MacBoy,
>
> Add to the discussion?? How could one possibly have a discussion
> with an idiot... at least not for very long.

Really? Then why are you still here?

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> .>The boat had a canoe stern which enhanced its speed and was a
>
>>safety factor in the event of large following seas.
>
>
> jimmy, stick to one troll at a time, please.
>
>
>
>> For most sailors who work for a living, the Mac addresses the
>>issue of time, and the limited amount each of us has, far more
>>intelligently than the Valiant.
>
>
>
> BwaaaaaHaahaha Oh yeah that was a good one!!!!!!!!!!
>
> SV
>

I can understand why it may take you a while to get what I'm talking
about, Scott, but it's worth your time. - Time is one of the few things
that we can't add to, buy more, go back to correct what we did, etc.
We all have a limited amount of it, and no one knows how much he or she
has left. - That's why the MacGregor 26M is a great choice, unless you
happen to be independently wealthy, and can spend as much time as you
want on your boat. Or, unless you want to live aboard. As explained in
the previous notes, The Mac permits you to spend less time getting to a
variety of sailing or recreational areas, and more time in the good
sailing areas or good recreational areas. It also permits you to trailer
your boat to many more sailing destinations that are available to the
typical displacement boat owner. For example, you can trailer the boat
down to Florida and sail in warm weather for a week while others have
put their boats away for the winter. Or, you can take your boat up to
Maine, or Mass, in the summer, to sail in comfortable weather while
others are sweating down in the lower US. In Texas, for example, we can
motor the boat down to a number of different sailing areas along the
Gulf coast. Again, unless you have unlimited vacation time, you couldn't
take trips like this frequently, or on weekends, etc.

Jim

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote >
> The plan is to leave the boat in a gated boat storage area that has
> access to the water. The mast would be left up.
what's the cost for that?



> > No insurance on your Mac?
>
> About $400 per year. (What I meant was that I wouldn't be paying
> insurance on the larger, charter boats.


I pay $215 for my ins., but then my boat is safer than yours.




> No bottom paint?
>
> Nope. Not needed if the boat is sitting on the trailor 98% of the time.


Oh.



> That 50 hp WILL need maitnance.
>
> Right. About $200 per year?

what do you think I spend on a Yanmar diesel per year? Hint: it's less than
$200. You really didn't research this very much, did you?



>
> > No rigging, electronics, or sails on your macM?????
>
> Yes, I'll have to keep up the sails, rigging, electronics, etc.


so you admit you were bull ****ting.




> "IF ONLY I had bought a Mac 26M....then I could be the laughing stock of
the sailing world."
>
>Jim

[Jim Cate]

wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:48:26 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
>>>Are you really going to crawl up to the bow offshore in a chop to swap jibs, or
>>>even to set a storm anchor?
>>
>>The furling jib would have to be taken down and replaced early, before
>>conditions were excessive. Regarding crawling up on the bow, the Mac
>>26M has provides access to the jib through the hatch located near the
>>bow, in which you can stand or sit on the V-berth and reach the jib
>>through the hatch. It gives slightly better footing than trying to walk
>>forward topside.
>>
>
>
> Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious reasons.
>
> BB

Thanks for that helpful suggestion, Binary. However,I think I've made
it clear that I intend to be very conservative when going off-shore, to
reef early, and substantially, if there is any question of threatening
weather. This would also apply to putting out a storm anchor. ... As
stated above:

Obviously, this is a small boat, and it would be foolhardy to sail
out in blue water in potentially severe conditions without reefing
down early, motoring back early if unusually severe conditions were
anticipated, and putting a storm jib or storm anchor out early if
necessary.

Ultimately, however, if an emergency arose despite all of the above, I
would rather have some water in the V-berth than wallow around without a
sea anchor.

Jim

Jim

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> The Mac permits you to spend less time getting to a
> variety of sailing or recreational areas, and more time in the good
> sailing areas or good recreational areas.

you don't understand 'sailing'.

>For example, you can trailer the boat
> down to Florida

but that would take a lot of time!



>
> Jimmy, a weekend warrior wannabe
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "John Cairns" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>>Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious
>>
>>reasons.
>>
>>>BB
>>
>>You better explain why this is, I don't think "jim" understands the concept
>>of waves and where they might end up.
>
>
> This is one of those lessons that has to be learned the hard way. It seems so
> easy to understand that forward hatches must be kept shut, but it only really
> sinks in after you see 6 inches of water on top of the bunk you have to sleep in
> that night.
>
> Last summer we had serious green water all the way to the dodger for the first
> time. Fortunately I anticipated it - we were exiting the Cape Cod Canal on a 5
> knot current against a 20 knot breeze - and was able to convince my wife that
> *all* hatches must be sealed. We rode up and over the first two big square
> waves (about 5-6 footers) but dove through the 8 footer before being squirted
> out into Cape Cod Bay. My wife was in the cabin below and freaked when she saw
> 6 inches of water over her head!
>
> I've wondered how a mac would handle this. With a good hand on the wheel, it
> should be able to blast through; but get twisted a bit in the first wave ...
>


If you consider that the Mac is much lighter, with much smaller sails,
it's likely that it may ride over some waves that your boat may try to
"bore through." Not in great comfort, admittedly.

Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Wow. 20 people tell you you'll full of sh*t and you don't
> believe them. Well, you've got a lot of undeserved self-esteem.

If they could come up with subtantive responses to my notes instead of
posting childish, personal attacks like that one, I might pay more
attention to them.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> It sounds like you don't know anything about IQ tests. 101 is "above
> average," 98 means nothing, being reasonably satisfied is a euphemism
> for not finding an excuse to fire you, it is for sure my opinion, I don't
> speak for others, and you do have a problem MacBoy.
>

As usual, you don't get it, do you John? The score of 98 was the score
on the ASA basic sailing course, not an IQ test. It was 98 percent, or
128 questions correct out of 130. - - As a suggestion, John, you
probably ought to slow down and read the notes somewhat more carefully
before you spout off. It might help you to avoid making a fool of
yourself, as you just did, quite so frequently.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>... Or were you hoping to get another answer.
>
>
> What sort of 'other answer' do you think I was hoping for?

Actually, I didn't say that I thought you were hoping for another answer.

Jim

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
>
> The score of 98 was the score
> on an IQ test.
>
> Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
>>hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
>>board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
>>with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
>>to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
>>kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)
>
>
> Although I generally prefer the daggerboard, the ability to shift the CLF
> (Center of Lateral Resistance) aft is very handy.

I understand that there are tradeoffs, and that moving the CLF might be
useful in some circumstances. From everyone I have spoken with who has
sailed her, that the dagger board permits the boat to do better upwind.
It also permits removing the cavity in which the swing keel nested,
reducing drag. And it can be extended partially or fully, as desired for
the particular point of sail. >
>
>
>>I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
>>The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
>>versatility for motoring without the water ballast.
>
>
> The permanent ballast was required because the V hull raised the Center of
> Gravity too much.

I think that some permanent ballast is a safety factor in any such boat.
>
>>I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
>>throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability.
>
>
> Meaning the new hull will not plane as easily.

Agreed. Despite what others have said, it's still primarily a sailboat,
not a power boat, though the new hull permits the boat to cut through
chop more smoothly. Again, there are tradeoffs in any design.


Jim
> >

[Jonathan Ganz]

You should pay more attention to what people are telling
you. You're the childish asshole, going on and on about a
piece of junk boat and pie-in-the-sky adventures you'll
never take.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Wow. 20 people tell you you'll full of sh*t and you don't
> > believe them. Well, you've got a lot of undeserved self-esteem.
>
> If they could come up with subtantive responses to my notes instead of
> posting childish, personal attacks like that one, I might pay more
> attention to them.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

You are so stupid that it's beyond belief.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeff Morris wrote:
>
> > "John Cairns" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>>Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious
> >>
> >>reasons.
> >>
> >>>BB
> >>
> >>You better explain why this is, I don't think "jim" understands the
concept
> >>of waves and where they might end up.
> >
> >
> > This is one of those lessons that has to be learned the hard way. It
seems so
> > easy to understand that forward hatches must be kept shut, but it only
really
> > sinks in after you see 6 inches of water on top of the bunk you have to
sleep in
> > that night.
> >
> > Last summer we had serious green water all the way to the dodger for the
first
> > time. Fortunately I anticipated it - we were exiting the Cape Cod Canal
on a 5
> > knot current against a 20 knot breeze - and was able to convince my wife
that
> > *all* hatches must be sealed. We rode up and over the first two big
square
> > waves (about 5-6 footers) but dove through the 8 footer before being
squirted
> > out into Cape Cod Bay. My wife was in the cabin below and freaked when
she saw
> > 6 inches of water over her head!
> >
> > I've wondered how a mac would handle this. With a good hand on the
wheel, it
> > should be able to blast through; but get twisted a bit in the first wave
....
> >
>
>
> If you consider that the Mac is much lighter, with much smaller sails,
> it's likely that it may ride over some waves that your boat may try to
> "bore through." Not in great comfort, admittedly.
>
> Jim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

What about "unexpected weather"???

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 17 Apr 2004 09:48:26 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
> >
> >>>Are you really going to crawl up to the bow offshore in a chop to swap
jibs, or
> >>>even to set a storm anchor?
> >>
> >>The furling jib would have to be taken down and replaced early, before
> >>conditions were excessive. Regarding crawling up on the bow, the Mac
> >>26M has provides access to the jib through the hatch located near the
> >>bow, in which you can stand or sit on the V-berth and reach the jib
> >>through the hatch. It gives slightly better footing than trying to walk
> >>forward topside.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Opening the forward hatch in heavy seas is a no-no for the obvious
reasons.
> >
> > BB
>
> Thanks for that helpful suggestion, Binary. However,I think I've made
> it clear that I intend to be very conservative when going off-shore, to
> reef early, and substantially, if there is any question of threatening
> weather. This would also apply to putting out a storm anchor. ... As
> stated above:
>
> Obviously, this is a small boat, and it would be foolhardy to sail
> out in blue water in potentially severe conditions without reefing
> down early, motoring back early if unusually severe conditions were
> anticipated, and putting a storm jib or storm anchor out early if
> necessary.
>
> Ultimately, however, if an emergency arose despite all of the above, I
> would rather have some water in the V-berth than wallow around without a
> sea anchor.
>
> Jim
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > MacBoy,
> >
> > Add to the discussion?? How could one possibly have a discussion
> > with an idiot... at least not for very long.
>
> Really? Then why are you still here?
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

And you're primarily stupid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> Agreed. Despite what others have said, it's still primarily a sailboat,
> not a power boat, though the new hull permits the boat to cut through
> chop more smoothly. Again, there are tradeoffs in any design.

[Jonathan Ganz]

Actually, I do understand, since you said you have an above average
IQ. Above average = 101. The 98% is meaningless, as an ASA or
other test has NO MEANING. What counts is sailing ability. If I
had been your instructor, I would have told you to pick another
hobby.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > It sounds like you don't know anything about IQ tests. 101 is "above
> > average," 98 means nothing, being reasonably satisfied is a euphemism
> > for not finding an excuse to fire you, it is for sure my opinion, I
don't
> > speak for others, and you do have a problem MacBoy.
> >
>
> As usual, you don't get it, do you John? The score of 98 was the score
> on the ASA basic sailing course, not an IQ test. It was 98 percent, or
> 128 questions correct out of 130. - - As a suggestion, John, you
> probably ought to slow down and read the notes somewhat more carefully
> before you spout off. It might help you to avoid making a fool of
> yourself, as you just did, quite so frequently.
>
> Jim
>

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

>>> ... Or were you hoping to get another answer.

>> What sort of 'other answer' do you think I was hoping for?

> Actually, I didn't say that I thought you were hoping for another
> answer.

Then why ask if was hopng for another answer? What were you alluding to?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.


And you really believe that Roger is posting these notes? Notes stating
that: real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE."
That his customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT
REALLY IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?

Scott, I happen to have a bridge for sale that you might be interested
in buying.

Jim

>
> SV
>
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>>Scott, you obviously don't get it. The point in this particular exchange
>>isn't whether the boat is suitable for blue water sailing, it's whether
>>the note purportedly posted by Roger MacGregor was a farce. (Which it
>>obviously was.)
>
>

[Jeff Morris]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you consider that the Mac is much lighter, with much smaller sails,
> it's likely that it may ride over some waves that your boat may try to
> "bore through." Not in great comfort, admittedly.
>


You're missing the point, Jim. My boat is extremely light for its size -
lighter than the mac in some ways (50% more length, more than twice the beam,
but a weight of only 8800 lbs). Diving through waves is more a function of the
wave shape - in strong current against strong wind situations the wave length
gets compressed, the heights grow, and the wave face appears "vertical."
Inevitably, you surf down one and slam into the base of the next faster than you
can rise up over them. There is also risk to going over the top, since at best,
you will pound hard on the other side, but at worst, you can get twisted
sideways and roll over.

[Jeff Morris]

<OzOne> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:34:02 -0500, Jim Cate >
> scribbled thusly:
>
> > And it can be extended partially or fully, as desired for
> >the particular point of sail. >
>
> There is a reason why centreboard yachts are required to have the
> centreboard locked fully down when racing.....
>

Is that true? I though it only applied if it was a weighted board. It
certainly doesn't apply to dinks.

[Jeff Morris]

<OzOne> wrote in message ...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 19:00:37 -0400, "Jeff Morris"
> > scribbled thusly:
> >> There is a reason why centreboard yachts are required to have the
> >> centreboard locked fully down when racing.....
> >
> >Is that true? I though it only applied if it was a weighted board. It
> >certainly doesn't apply to dinks.
>
> Yep, true.
> Never applied to dinghys though a couple of classes here insist to
> their downwind performance detriment and same in up wind planing
> conditions.

Not that it matters much to me, but here's the PHRF rules:

http://www.rmsail.org/PHRF%20Guidelines.pdf

PHRF Rules While Racing:
All PHRF members shall abide by the following rules while racing unless
specifically exempted in
the PHRF rating certificate.
.. Yachts must race as configured and documented on their rating certificate
while racing.
.. No part of the torso of skipper or crew shall be outboard of a vertical plane
extending upward
from the rail while racing. The torso shall be defined as the trunk of the human
body not
including the arms, legs, or head.
.. Water ballast boats shall be filled and sealed during racing. Any PHRF member
may request
that water ballast boats be inspected before and after racing to verify
compliance.
.. Boats with moveable keels, ballasted centerboards, swing keels and similar
types, keep said
keel/centerboard locked in the full down position at all times when racing.
.. Centerboard boats where the centerboard/keel provides no righting ballast may
raise
centerboard while racing.
.. An outboard motor may be removed from the transom while racing only if it is
not removed
from the yacht.
.. All interior equipment delivered standard from the manufacturer such as berth
cushions,
latrines, cabinetry, and holding tanks must remain onboard while racing.
Optional equipment
does not apply.

[DSK]

Jim Cate wrote:
> .... However,I think I've made
> it clear that I intend to be very conservative when going off-shore, to
> reef early, and substantially, if there is any question of threatening
> weather.

Unfortunately, neither "being conservative" nor reefing will help if
conditions are such that you're going to get solid water over the deck.
Just last week I was talking to a nice man who was bringing in a heavy
traditional cutter. He had been out in fairly common conditions, a
spring cold front, which kicked up waves big enough to roll over his
foredeck. One peeled open his fore hatch, which was a big surprise to
his fiancee sleeping in the V-berth.

A Mac 26M (having pretty much the same hull as the 26X) has enough
reserve bouyancy to survive such an incident... as long as the water
coming in didn't compromise the stability (water ballast and all that)...

Fresh Breezes- Doug King


>
> Ultimately, however, if an emergency arose despite all of the above, I
> would rather have some water in the V-berth than wallow around without a
> sea anchor.
>
> Jim
>
> Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:
> "Jim Cate" > wrote >
>
>>The plan is to leave the boat in a gated boat storage area that has
>>access to the water. The mast would be left up.
>
> what's the cost for that?
>
> $65 per month.
>
>
>>>No insurance on your Mac?
>>
>>About $400 per year. (What I meant was that I wouldn't be paying
>>insurance on the larger, charter boats.
>
>
>
> I pay $215 for my ins., but then my boat is safer than yours.
>
>
>
>
>
>> No bottom paint?
>>
>>Nope. Not needed if the boat is sitting on the trailor 98% of the time.
>
>
>
> Oh.
>
>
>
>
>>That 50 hp WILL need maitnance.
>>
>>Right. About $200 per year?
>
>
> what do you think I spend on a Yanmar diesel per year? Hint: it's less than
> $200. You really didn't research this very much, did you?
>
>
>
>
>>>No rigging, electronics, or sails on your macM?????
>>
>>Yes, I'll have to keep up the sails, rigging, electronics, etc.
>
>
>
> so you admit you were bull ****ting.
>
>
>
>
>
>>"IF ONLY I had bought a Mac 26M....then I could be the laughing stock of
>
> the sailing world."
>
>>Jim
>
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote >
>
>>The plan is to leave the boat in a gated boat storage area that has
>>access to the water. The mast would be left up.
>
> what's the cost for that?

$65 per month
>
>
>
>
>>>No insurance on your Mac?
>>
>>About $400 per year. (What I meant was that I wouldn't be paying
>>insurance on the larger, charter boats.
>
Actually, the quote I had was $300. I was including some padding.
>
>
> I pay $215 for my ins., but then my boat is safer than yours.
>
>
>
>
>
>> No bottom paint?
>>
>>Nope. Not needed if the boat is sitting on the trailor 98% of the time.
>
>
>
> Oh.
>
>
>
>
>>That 50 hp WILL need maitnance.
>>
>>Right. About $200 per year?
>
>
> what do you think I spend on a Yanmar diesel per year? Hint: it's less than
> $200. You really didn't research this very much, did you?


Actually, my comment mentioning $200 was a question, not a statement. I
actually think it will be much less than that. Your diesel may not
have cost you much in the past few years, but sooner or later, you will
ahve to have an overhaul. You need to prorate the bigger costs into your
annual estimate.
>
>
>
>>>No rigging, electronics, or sails on your macM?????
>>
>>Yes, I'll have to keep up the sails, rigging, electronics, etc.
>
>
>
> so you admit you were bull ****ting.
>
>
> Nope. I never claimed that I wouldn't have maintenance costs, did I Scot? The point

is that I won't have to pay many of the costs paid by my freinds with large
boats kept in the marinas in this area.
thdon't ex[ect texongi
>
>
>>"IF ONLY I had bought a Mac 26M....then I could be the laughing stock of
>
> the sailing world."
>
>>Jim


He who laughs last.......

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>> The Mac permits you to spend less time getting to a
>>variety of sailing or recreational areas, and more time in the good
>>sailing areas or good recreational areas.
>
>
> you don't understand 'sailing'.
>
>
>>For example, you can trailer the boat
>>down to Florida
>
>
> but that would take a lot of time!


In our area, the boat could be trailered to the Gulf coast in less than
an hour, or to various ports up and down the coast in two or three
hours. It means the difference between being essentially locked into
one sailing area for most of the year (It can get pretty monotonous) and
being able to go whereever we want to go, in one weekend. Despite your
pontification and sarcasm, the boat does substantially minimize the
"lack of time" factor.

Jim

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> You are so stupid that it's beyond belief.

How can you possibly believe that, or post such a remark on this ng?
What, in particular, have I posted that would suggest that I'm stupid
beyond believe.

BE SPECIFIC FOR A CHANGE, ASSHOLE.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jeff Morris wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If you consider that the Mac is much lighter, with much smaller sails,
>>it's likely that it may ride over some waves that your boat may try to
>>"bore through." Not in great comfort, admittedly.
>>
>
>
>
> You're missing the point, Jim. My boat is extremely light for its size -
> lighter than the mac in some ways (50% more length, more than twice the beam,
> but a weight of only 8800 lbs). Diving through waves is more a function of the
> wave shape - in strong current against strong wind situations the wave length
> gets compressed, the heights grow, and the wave face appears "vertical."
> Inevitably, you surf down one and slam into the base of the next faster than you
> can rise up over them. There is also risk to going over the top, since at best,
> you will pound hard on the other side, but at worst, you can get twisted
> sideways and roll over.
>
OK. I didn't know what boat you had. Obviously, I'll want to respect
the limiations of the 26-foot boat.

Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

ha ha, it's gonna take jimbo a long time before he realizes the mistake he
made. And then even longer for him to admit it to himself. He'll NEVER
admit it to us.

SV


> wrote
> >
> >Scott, I happen to have a Mac26M for sale that you might be interested
> >in buying.
> >
> >Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

<OzOne> wrote >
> It's also likely that it'll take a belly full through that open hatch,
> go bow down, dive into the next wave, ship more water then turn
> turtle!


that's OK, it's got'' positive foam floatation''.

:)

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote ...
> >
> Obviously, I'll want to respect
> the limiations of the 26 M and never leave the dock.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:48:11 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Scott Vernon wrote:
>>
>>
>>>check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.



Binary, think about this for a moment. This newsgroup can be read by
anyone in the United States with access to the internet. In fact, it
can be read by people around the world. - In England, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Russia, China, etc. Do you REALLY think that the "real"
Roger MacGregor is going to post comments criticizing his boats like
that on this newsgroup? Comments like:

real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE." Our
customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT REALLY
IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?

If so, I have several bridges up for sale.

Jim


>>
>>
>>And you really believe that Roger is posting these notes? Notes stating
>> that: real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE."
>>That his customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT
>>REALLY IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
>>Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?
>>
>>Scott, I happen to have a Mac26M for sale that you might be interested
>>in buying.
>>
>>Jim
>
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.

Really? Then why are you here, still sticking around? If it were a rout,
it would have been finished long ago. - You just can't leave it alone,
can you John?

Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
> >
> Actually, the quote I had was $300. I was including some padding.


for your knees.




>
> Actually, my comment mentioning $200 was a question, not a statement. I
> actually think it will be much less than that. Your diesel may not
> have cost you much in the past few years, but sooner or later, you will
> ahve to have an overhaul. You need to prorate the bigger costs into your
> annual estimate.

not true mac-boy. I only put about 60 hours on the engine per season. How
many hours do you think a diesel has?




> "IF ONLY I had bought a Mac 26M....then I could be the laughing stock of
>
> the sailing world."
>
> Jimbo
>
>
> He who laughs last.......

took the longest to get the joke.

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>
> In our area, the boat could be trailered to the Gulf coast in less than
> an hour, or to various ports up and down the coast in two or three
> hours.

why don't you just drive your car and get there faster?

you don't get 'sailing'.


>It means the difference between being essentially locked into
> one sailing area for most of the year (It can get pretty monotonous)


you don't understand 'sailing'.



> being able to go whereever we want to go, in one weekend.

weekend warrior


> Despite my
> pontification and sarcasm, the boat does substantially minimize the
> "sailing" factor.
>
> Jimbo
>
> Jimboo
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> What about "unexpected weather"???

Most weather is "unexpected" in our area. My point is that I intend to
be very conservative in going out when the weather is questionable, and
to motor back soon when the forecast indicates worsening conditions. I
intend to reef early and substantially, and stay close to shore if the
weather becomes questionable.

On the other hand, I don't intend to stay off the blue water because
there might be "unexpected" changes in the weather. As I've told you
several times, John, if I perish at sea, you won't have to stick around
posting notes on this discussion string anymore. You seem to have become
compulsive about the whole thing, and you can't seem to let it go. -
Seems to me that you ought to be encouraging me and urging me on.

Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote ...
>
>
> What, in particular, have I posted that would suggest that I'm stupid
> beyond believe.
>
> BE SPECIFIC FOR A CHANGE,
>
>ASSHOLE.


You wrote you were buying a Mac26Mx, DUH!

nice sig. BTW.

SV

[Jim Cate]

DSK wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>> .... However,I think I've made it clear that I intend to be very
>> conservative when going off-shore, to reef early, and substantially,
>> if there is any question of threatening weather.
>
>
> Unfortunately, neither "being conservative" nor reefing will help if
> conditions are such that you're going to get solid water over the deck.
> Just last week I was talking to a nice man who was bringing in a heavy
> traditional cutter. He had been out in fairly common conditions, a
> spring cold front, which kicked up waves big enough to roll over his
> foredeck. One peeled open his fore hatch, which was a big surprise to
> his fiancee sleeping in the V-berth.

Well, I'm prepared to die. But I don't intend to stop sailing in blue
water because there is a chance that heavy weather might develop. As
indicated above, I intend to reef early, stay close to shore, and head
back to shore early if changes are observed or predicted.

Jim


>
> A Mac 26M (having pretty much the same hull as the 26X) has enough
> reserve bouyancy to survive such an incident... as long as the water
> coming in didn't compromise the stability (water ballast and all that)...
>
> Fresh Breezes- Doug King
>
>
>>
>> Ultimately, however, if an emergency arose despite all of the above, I
>> would rather have some water in the V-berth than wallow around without
>> a sea anchor.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> Jim
>>
>

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> In particular, I would suggest that I'm stupid beyond believe.

[Scott Vernon]

If you had a decent boat you wouldn't have to be so paranoid about the
weather.



"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> > What about "unexpected weather"???
>
> Most weather is "unexpected" in our area. My point is that I intend to
> be very conservative in going out when the weather is questionable, and
> to motor back soon when the forecast indicates worsening conditions. I
> intend to reef early and substantially, and stay close to shore if the
> weather becomes questionable.

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> You should pay more attention to what people are telling
> you. You're the childish asshole, going on and on about a
> piece of junk boat and pie-in-the-sky adventures you'll
> never take.

ANOTHER non substantive personal attack, Johnathan. Could you possibly
be just a little more specific? Notes like this are so vague
and indefinite that they just tend to raise questions about the
writer. - In other words, if you had anything to say, other than your
usual personal harangue, why didn't you say it?

jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>> The score of 98 was the score
>>on an IQ test.
>>
>>Jim

Nope. my note stated:

"I recently took the ASA basic sailing course again as a review and
scored 98."

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
> I'm well prepared to die, thus the Mac M purchase.
>
> Jim

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> Notes like this are so vague
> and indefinite that they just tend to raise questions about the
> writer.

Why didn't you answer the question that I put to you a while ago?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Actually, I do understand, since you said you have an above average
> IQ. Above average = 101. The 98% is meaningless, as an ASA or
> other test has NO MEANING. What counts is sailing ability. If I
> had been your instructor, I would have told you to pick another
> hobby.
>

Wrong again, Johnny. The ASA course included two days of sailing, in
which our instructor tested us on sailing on all points of sail,
performing man-overboard-recoveries, docking, following the channels,
reading the markers, observing right-of-way rules with respect to other
boats of all kinds, knot tying, etc. While you may say that my score of
98 has no meaning, the test was very comprehensive. The results
indicate that I'm not a total novice, or a dumb-ass as you have
previously stated. If I were a total dumb-ass, I couldn't have aced the
test.

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>>>>... Or were you hoping to get another answer.
>
>
>>>What sort of 'other answer' do you think I was hoping for?
>
>
>>Actually, I didn't say that I thought you were hoping for another
>>answer.
>
>
> Then why ask if was hopng for another answer? What were you alluding to?


From my experience on this ng so far, around 98% of those who ask me a
question are doing so hoping that I'll goof, or make a mistake of some
type that they can then use as a "gotcha" for further ridicule or
sarcasm. In this case, I had suspected that you were expecting that I
was blowing smoke, and that I really didn't have any specific,
substantive problems with the Mac 26x.

If I was wrong in this regard, and you really aren't trying to put me
down, please accept my apologies.

Jim

Jim
>
>

[Wally]

Jim Cate wrote:

> From my experience on this ng so far, around 98% of those who ask me
> a question are doing so hoping that I'll goof, or make a mistake of
> some type that they can then use as a "gotcha" for further ridicule or
> sarcasm. In this case, I had suspected that you were expecting that I
> was blowing smoke, and that I really didn't have any specific,
> substantive problems with the Mac 26x.
>
> If I was wrong in this regard, and you really aren't trying to put me
> down, please accept my apologies.

Thanks, but that wasn't the question I was referring to.


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

[Roger MacGregor]

Sorry to hear you feel that way Jim. I've been posting to this group
for 25 years. if you want, you can call me at the office and verify
that it is indeed me. I'll be glad to discuss the new 'M' model and
maybe we can make a deal on your bridge.
Call the factory and ask for Rog.

Roger MacGregor


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message ...
>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:48:11 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:

> >>
> >>
> >>>check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.
>
>
>
> Binary, think about this for a moment. This newsgroup can be read by
> anyone in the United States with access to the internet. In fact, it
> can be read by people around the world. - In England, France, Germany,
> Italy, Japan, Russia, China, etc. Do you REALLY think that the "real"
> Roger MacGregor is going to post comments criticizing his boats like
> that on this newsgroup? Comments like:
>
> real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE." Our
> customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT REALLY
> IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
> Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?
>
> If so, I have several bridges up for sale.
>

[Roger MacGregor]

That was our intention from the git-go. Beginners are afraid of
sailing, yet they want to make claim to the title 'sailor'. The 'X',
and now the new and improved 'M' model are meant to intice the sailor
in you, yet have the look, and therefore the safety of a power boat.
Trust me, it works.

Roger Mac


"John Cairns" > wrote in message ...

> I have a problem with their looks. While Bolger designs might look ugly and
> boxy(not saying they do) they look like sailing vessels. The macs look too
> much like powerboats, especially the new ones.
> John Cairns
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Because he's a lying coward.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Wally" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Cate wrote:
>
> > Notes like this are so vague
> > and indefinite that they just tend to raise questions about the
> > writer.
>
> Why didn't you answer the question that I put to you a while ago?
>
>
> --
> Wally
> www.artbywally.com
> www.wally.myby.co.uk/music
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Actually, it was quite substantive. You're just too stupid to
understand.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > You should pay more attention to what people are telling
> > you. You're the childish asshole, going on and on about a
> > piece of junk boat and pie-in-the-sky adventures you'll
> > never take.
>
> ANOTHER non substantive personal attack, Johnathan. Could you possibly
> be just a little more specific? Notes like this are so vague
> and indefinite that they just tend to raise questions about the
> writer. - In other words, if you had anything to say, other than your
> usual personal harangue, why didn't you say it?
>
> jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

By going on and on about a piece of junk, which you bought and
now are trying to justify.

GIVE US A GOOD REASON MACBOY.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > You are so stupid that it's beyond belief.
>
> How can you possibly believe that, or post such a remark on this ng?
> What, in particular, have I posted that would suggest that I'm stupid
> beyond believe.
>
> BE SPECIFIC FOR A CHANGE, ASSHOLE.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

In that case, sell it immediately. DON'T SAIL IT MACBOY.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jeff Morris wrote:
>
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>If you consider that the Mac is much lighter, with much smaller sails,
> >>it's likely that it may ride over some waves that your boat may try to
> >>"bore through." Not in great comfort, admittedly.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > You're missing the point, Jim. My boat is extremely light for its
size -
> > lighter than the mac in some ways (50% more length, more than twice the
beam,
> > but a weight of only 8800 lbs). Diving through waves is more a function
of the
> > wave shape - in strong current against strong wind situations the wave
length
> > gets compressed, the heights grow, and the wave face appears "vertical."
> > Inevitably, you surf down one and slam into the base of the next faster
than you
> > can rise up over them. There is also risk to going over the top, since
at best,
> > you will pound hard on the other side, but at worst, you can get twisted
> > sideways and roll over.
> >
> OK. I didn't know what boat you had. Obviously, I'll want to respect
> the limiations of the 26-foot boat.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Huh?? Most weather is unexpected? I guess you have to be
prepared for anything, even the possibility that the MAC IS
A CRAP BOAT AND YOU ARE A LIAR.

Interesting how you comment on all my posts, even though
they're not substantive.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > What about "unexpected weather"???
>
> Most weather is "unexpected" in our area. My point is that I intend to
> be very conservative in going out when the weather is questionable, and
> to motor back soon when the forecast indicates worsening conditions. I
> intend to reef early and substantially, and stay close to shore if the
> weather becomes questionable.
>
> On the other hand, I don't intend to stay off the blue water because
> there might be "unexpected" changes in the weather. As I've told you
> several times, John, if I perish at sea, you won't have to stick around
> posting notes on this discussion string anymore. You seem to have become
> compulsive about the whole thing, and you can't seem to let it go. -
> Seems to me that you ought to be encouraging me and urging me on.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Well, if you need any encouragement from us 20 who are
telling you over and over that your Mac is junk....

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> DSK wrote:
>
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >> .... However,I think I've made it clear that I intend to be very
> >> conservative when going off-shore, to reef early, and substantially,
> >> if there is any question of threatening weather.
> >
> >
> > Unfortunately, neither "being conservative" nor reefing will help if
> > conditions are such that you're going to get solid water over the deck.
> > Just last week I was talking to a nice man who was bringing in a heavy
> > traditional cutter. He had been out in fairly common conditions, a
> > spring cold front, which kicked up waves big enough to roll over his
> > foredeck. One peeled open his fore hatch, which was a big surprise to
> > his fiancee sleeping in the V-berth.
>
> Well, I'm prepared to die. But I don't intend to stop sailing in blue
> water because there is a chance that heavy weather might develop. As
> indicated above, I intend to reef early, stay close to shore, and head
> back to shore early if changes are observed or predicted.
>
> Jim
>
>
> >
> > A Mac 26M (having pretty much the same hull as the 26X) has enough
> > reserve bouyancy to survive such an incident... as long as the water
> > coming in didn't compromise the stability (water ballast and all
that)...
> >
> > Fresh Breezes- Doug King
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Ultimately, however, if an emergency arose despite all of the above, I
> >> would rather have some water in the V-berth than wallow around without
> >> a sea anchor.
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >> Jim
> >>
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I've been here long before you arrived, and I'll be here long
after you go. You're a piker compared to some of the others
who couldn't hack it and folded.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> > This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.
>
> Really? Then why are you here, still sticking around? If it were a rout,
> it would have been finished long ago. - You just can't leave it alone,
> can you John?
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.

If so, why are you still sticking around"
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Actually, that's not true, even in my case (of non-substantive posts).
The fact is that we tried to disuade you from your purchase, but it
turned out that you had already bought the junk and now seek to
justify it. So far, you haven't asked a single question that wasn't
answered in great detail. Thus, you are a MacBoy, a fool, and
stupid.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Wally wrote:
>
> > Jim Cate wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>... Or were you hoping to get another answer.
> >
> >
> >>>What sort of 'other answer' do you think I was hoping for?
> >
> >
> >>Actually, I didn't say that I thought you were hoping for another
> >>answer.
> >
> >
> > Then why ask if was hopng for another answer? What were you alluding to?
>
>
> From my experience on this ng so far, around 98% of those who ask me a
> question are doing so hoping that I'll goof, or make a mistake of some
> type that they can then use as a "gotcha" for further ridicule or
> sarcasm. In this case, I had suspected that you were expecting that I
> was blowing smoke, and that I really didn't have any specific,
> substantive problems with the Mac 26x.
>
> If I was wrong in this regard, and you really aren't trying to put me
> down, please accept my apologies.
>
> Jim
>
> Jim
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Well, duh... you don't???

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.
>
>
> And you really believe that Roger is posting these notes? Notes stating
> that: real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE."
> That his customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT
> REALLY IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
> Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?
>
> Scott, I happen to have a bridge for sale that you might be interested
> in buying.
>
> Jim
>
> >
> > SV
> >
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >>Scott, you obviously don't get it. The point in this particular exchange
> >>isn't whether the boat is suitable for blue water sailing, it's whether
> >>the note purportedly posted by Roger MacGregor was a farce. (Which it
> >>obviously was.)
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Well, unlike you, he's an honest guy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:48:11 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>Scott Vernon wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.
>
>
>
> Binary, think about this for a moment. This newsgroup can be read by
> anyone in the United States with access to the internet. In fact, it
> can be read by people around the world. - In England, France, Germany,
> Italy, Japan, Russia, China, etc. Do you REALLY think that the "real"
> Roger MacGregor is going to post comments criticizing his boats like
> that on this newsgroup? Comments like:
>
> real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE." Our
> customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT REALLY
> IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
> Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?
>
> If so, I have several bridges up for sale.
>
> Jim
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >>And you really believe that Roger is posting these notes? Notes stating
> >> that: real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE."
> >>That his customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT
> >>REALLY IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
> >>Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?
> >>
> >>Scott, I happen to have a Mac26M for sale that you might be interested
> >>in buying.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

And, my last post was that IT IS MEANINGLESS since you clearly
know nothing about sailing. Primary evidence... purchasing a Mac,
MacBoy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >> The score of 98 was the score
> >>on an IQ test.
> >>
> >>Jim
>
> Nope. my note stated:
>
> "I recently took the ASA basic sailing course again as a review and
> scored 98."
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Wow. Two WHOLE DAYS! Yes folks, this is some expert!

You didn't ace the test. You missed 2% (assuming we believe
you, which we don't).

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Actually, I do understand, since you said you have an above average
> > IQ. Above average = 101. The 98% is meaningless, as an ASA or
> > other test has NO MEANING. What counts is sailing ability. If I
> > had been your instructor, I would have told you to pick another
> > hobby.
> >
>
> Wrong again, Johnny. The ASA course included two days of sailing, in
> which our instructor tested us on sailing on all points of sail,
> performing man-overboard-recoveries, docking, following the channels,
> reading the markers, observing right-of-way rules with respect to other
> boats of all kinds, knot tying, etc. While you may say that my score of
> 98 has no meaning, the test was very comprehensive. The results
> indicate that I'm not a total novice, or a dumb-ass as you have
> previously stated. If I were a total dumb-ass, I couldn't have aced the
> test.
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Busted flush?

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.
>
> If so, why are you still sticking around"
> >
>

[katysails]

MacGregor (snort) said:
Trust me, it works.

Yeah...their next boat is a Bayliner....

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cant" > wrote
>
> If I were a total dumb-ass, I would buy a Mac26Mx.
>
>
> Jim
>

[Scott Vernon]

Jimmy, you've got to understand, you're simply the 'flavor of the month'.
Eventually either you , or we or both will tire of kicking you and the POS
Mac26Mx around and move on to another subject/poster. For the time being,
you're the easiest target we have. Plus you're funny. Enjoy it while you
can.

SV, asa NG monitor.


"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.
>
> If so, why are you still sticking around"
> >
>

[Remco Moedt]

On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:13:03 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:

>In our area, the boat could be trailered to the Gulf coast in less than
>an hour, or to various ports up and down the coast in two or three
>hours. It means the difference between being essentially locked into
>one sailing area for most of the year (It can get pretty monotonous) and
>being able to go whereever we want to go, in one weekend. Despite your
>pontification and sarcasm, the boat does substantially minimize the
>"lack of time" factor.

I still don't understand why you didn't buy a motorboat and optionally
also a dinghy. IMO 'getting there' is an huge part of the fun...


Cheers!


Remco

[Jonathan Ganz]

Because he's dumber than a pigeon.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Remco Moedt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:13:03 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
> >In our area, the boat could be trailered to the Gulf coast in less than
> >an hour, or to various ports up and down the coast in two or three
> >hours. It means the difference between being essentially locked into
> >one sailing area for most of the year (It can get pretty monotonous) and
> >being able to go whereever we want to go, in one weekend. Despite your
> >pontification and sarcasm, the boat does substantially minimize the
> >"lack of time" factor.
>
> I still don't understand why you didn't buy a motorboat and optionally
> also a dinghy. IMO 'getting there' is an huge part of the fun...
>
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> Remco
>

[Donal]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
> From my experience on this ng so far, around 98% of those who ask me a
> question are doing so hoping that I'll goof, or make a mistake of some
> type that they can then use as a "gotcha" for further ridicule or
> sarcasm.

Ignore it.

Based on the answers that you gave me, I am sure that you will enjoy the
boat.

The opinions of strangers on Usenet doesn't matter one iota.

You will have great days on your new boat. After all, the greatest pleasure
in life is "being out on the water". The difference between a Mac26 and a
Swan is very small in this respect.


Congratulations on the purchase of your new boat!



Regards



Donal
--

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> I've been here long before you arrived, and I'll be here long
> after you go. You're a piker compared to some of the others
> who couldn't hack it and folded.
>

Really, John? How many years have you been posting to this newsgroup? -

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Scott Vernon wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>>
>>In our area, the boat could be trailered to the Gulf coast in less than
>>an hour, or to various ports up and down the coast in two or three
>>hours.
>
>
> why don't you just drive your car and get there faster?

I may do that. Taking my Mac 26M with me.


>
> you don't get 'sailing'.

Really? I've probably been sailing longer than you have.
>
>
>
>>It means the difference between being essentially locked into
>>one sailing area for most of the year (It can get pretty monotonous)
>
>
>
> you don't understand 'sailing'.

I understand it. I also understand that you are less interested in
sailing than you are in joining the Mac attack and getting "attaboys"
from your sleezy buddies.



> I love
>
>
>>being able to go whereever we want to go, in one weekend.
>
>
> weekend warrior
>
>
>
>>Despite my
>>pontification and sarcasm, the boat does substantially minimize the
>>"sailing" factor.
>>

In other words, you have no response. Right?

Jim



>

[Jim Cate]

Roger MacGregor wrote:

> Sorry to hear you feel that way Jim. I've been posting to this group
> for 25 years. if you want, you can call me at the office and verify
> that it is indeed me. I'll be glad to discuss the new 'M' model and
> maybe we can make a deal on your bridge.
> Call the factory and ask for Rog.
>
> Roger MacGregor
>
Roger, could you elaborate on your statements to the effect that you
peddle a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT" and that your "customers have "NO CLUE
WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT REALLY
> IS." And tell me about the bribe you said you paid to
> Practical Sailor, and your paying off the DEP and OSHA?

That's an interesting story.

Jim

>

[Jim Cate]

Wally wrote:

> Jim Cate wrote:
>
>
>> From my experience on this ng so far, around 98% of those who ask me
>>a question are doing so hoping that I'll goof, or make a mistake of
>>some type that they can then use as a "gotcha" for further ridicule or
>>sarcasm. In this case, I had suspected that you were expecting that I
>>was blowing smoke, and that I really didn't have any specific,
>>substantive problems with the Mac 26x.
>>
>>If I was wrong in this regard, and you really aren't trying to put me
>>down, please accept my apologies.
>
>
> Thanks, but that wasn't the question I was referring to.
>

Wally, there are lots of notes on this string, and lots of questions. If
you will give me a hint at to what your question was, I'll be happy to
answer it.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Actually, that's not true, even in my case (of non-substantive posts).
> The fact is that we tried to disuade you from your purchase, but it
> turned out that you had already bought the junk and now seek to
> justify it.


This is a lie, of course. (But you don't care whether you have to lie a
little bit on the ng, do you Johnny? Lying, cheating, distoring others
statements, is just part of the game for you. Right Johnny?)


So far, you haven't asked a single question that wasn't
> answered in great detail. Thus, you are a MacBoy, a fool, and
> stupid.


Not true, of course. No one has directly responded to my my discussio
nof six advantages the Mac 26M has over the Valiant 40. Most of all, its
capability of addressing the issue of time.

Jim
>

[Jim Cate]

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

> Wow. Two WHOLE DAYS!

Add to that 25 years of sailing.

Jim



Yes folks, this is some expert!
>
> You didn't ace the test. You missed 2% (assuming we believe
> you, which we don't).
>

[Jim Cate]

wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:30:57 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
>
>>
wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 17:48:11 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Scott Vernon wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.
>>
>>
>>
>>Binary, think about this for a moment. This newsgroup can be read by
>>anyone in the United States with access to the internet. In fact, it
>>can be read by people around the world. - In England, France, Germany,
>>Italy, Japan, Russia, China, etc. Do you REALLY think that the "real"
>>Roger MacGregor is going to post comments criticizing his boats like
>>that on this newsgroup? Comments like:
>>
>> real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE." Our
>>customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT REALLY
>>IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
>>Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?
>>
>
>
> Jim,
>
> If I'm the gullible one, why do YOU have the Mac26m?
>
> BB


So you prefer to run away from my question, right BB? Do you REALLY
think that Roger M would post statements like that on this ng?

Jim

[Jim Cate]

Donal wrote:

> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> From my experience on this ng so far, around 98% of those who ask me a
>>question are doing so hoping that I'll goof, or make a mistake of some
>>type that they can then use as a "gotcha" for further ridicule or
>>sarcasm.
>
>
> Ignore it.
>
> Based on the answers that you gave me, I am sure that you will enjoy the
> boat.
>
> The opinions of strangers on Usenet doesn't matter one iota.
>
> You will have great days on your new boat. After all, the greatest pleasure
> in life is "being out on the water". The difference between a Mac26 and a
> Swan is very small in this respect.
>
>
> Congratulations on the purchase of your new boat!
> >
> Regards
>
> Donal
>

Thanks. I'm looking forward to it.

Jim
--
>
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

When you're in a power boat (or a mac26mx) you're going somewhere.

When you're in a sailboat, you're alredy there.


Jim is a jackass and doesn't deserve to be a sailor.

SV


"Remco Moedt" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 18 Apr 2004 20:13:03 -0500, Jim Cate > wrote:
>
> >In our area, the boat could be trailered to the Gulf coast in less than
> >an hour, or to various ports up and down the coast in two or three
> >hours. It means the difference between being essentially locked into
> >one sailing area for most of the year (It can get pretty monotonous) and
> >being able to go whereever we want to go, in one weekend. Despite your
> >pontification and sarcasm, the boat does substantially minimize the
> >"lack of time" factor.
>
> I still don't understand why you didn't buy a motorboat and optionally
> also a dinghy. IMO 'getting there' is an huge part of the fun...
>
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> Remco
>

[Scott Vernon]

those old power boat feelings creeping back in, Donut?

Scotty

"Donut" the ex-power boater wrote
>
> Ignore it.
>
> Based on the answers that you gave me, I am sure that you will enjoy the
> boat.
>
> The opinions of strangers on Usenet doesn't matter one iota.
>
> You will have great days on your new boat. After all, the greatest
pleasure
> in life is "being out on the water". The difference between a Mac26 and a
> Swan is very small in this respect.
>
>
> Congratulations on the purchase of your new boat!
>
>
>
> Regards
>
>
>
> Donal
> --
>
>
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >>In our area, the boat could be trailered to the Gulf coast in less than
> >>an hour, or to various ports up and down the coast in two or three
> >>hours.
> >
> >
> > why don't you just drive your car and get there faster?
>
> I may do that. Taking my Mac 26M with me.


Yes! Be sure to park in the front lot of the local Seafood restaurant and
talk loud and 'salty' while you're eating.

PS throw in a few ''Arggggggs'' now and then.

Scotty

[Jonathan Ganz]

Many more than you MacBoy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> > I've been here long before you arrived, and I'll be here long
> > after you go. You're a piker compared to some of the others
> > who couldn't hack it and folded.
> >
>
> Really, John? How many years have you been posting to this newsgroup? -
>
> Jim
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

Sailing doesn't include the Mac, MacBoy.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Vernon wrote:
>
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote
> >
> >>
> >>In our area, the boat could be trailered to the Gulf coast in less than
> >>an hour, or to various ports up and down the coast in two or three
> >>hours.
> >
> >
> > why don't you just drive your car and get there faster?
>
> I may do that. Taking my Mac 26M with me.
>
>
> >
> > you don't get 'sailing'.
>
> Really? I've probably been sailing longer than you have.
> >
> >
> >
> >>It means the difference between being essentially locked into
> >>one sailing area for most of the year (It can get pretty monotonous)
> >
> >
> >
> > you don't understand 'sailing'.
>
> I understand it. I also understand that you are less interested in
> sailing than you are in joining the Mac attack and getting "attaboys"
> from your sleezy buddies.
>
>
>
> > I love
> >
> >
> >>being able to go whereever we want to go, in one weekend.
> >
> >
> > weekend warrior
> >
> >
> >
> >>Despite my
> >>pontification and sarcasm, the boat does substantially minimize the
> >>"sailing" factor.
> >>
>
> In other words, you have no response. Right?
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

He has no need to elaborate. We all get it except you.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Roger MacGregor wrote:
>
> > Sorry to hear you feel that way Jim. I've been posting to this group
> > for 25 years. if you want, you can call me at the office and verify
> > that it is indeed me. I'll be glad to discuss the new 'M' model and
> > maybe we can make a deal on your bridge.
> > Call the factory and ask for Rog.
> >
> > Roger MacGregor
> >
> Roger, could you elaborate on your statements to the effect that you
> peddle a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT" and that your "customers have "NO CLUE
> WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT REALLY
> > IS." And tell me about the bribe you said you paid to
> > Practical Sailor, and your paying off the DEP and OSHA?
>
> That's an interesting story.
>
> Jim
>
> >
>

[Scott Vernon]

time is relevant, jimmy. On your Mac26Mx 2 hours will seem like an
eternity, in Hell. Time spent on a *real* sailboat always goes by too
fast.

Scotty


"Jimbo Can't" > wrote
> Most of all, its
> capability of addressing the issue of time.
>
> Jimbo
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I've spoken the obvious truth. You've been lying since you
got here MacBoy. You have yet to prove when you actually
bought the boat. We're STILL WAITING.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Actually, that's not true, even in my case (of non-substantive posts).
> > The fact is that we tried to disuade you from your purchase, but it
> > turned out that you had already bought the junk and now seek to
> > justify it.
>
>
> This is a lie, of course. (But you don't care whether you have to lie a
> little bit on the ng, do you Johnny? Lying, cheating, distoring others
> statements, is just part of the game for you. Right Johnny?)
>
>
> So far, you haven't asked a single question that wasn't
> > answered in great detail. Thus, you are a MacBoy, a fool, and
> > stupid.
>
>
> Not true, of course. No one has directly responded to my my discussio
> nof six advantages the Mac 26M has over the Valiant 40. Most of all, its
> capability of addressing the issue of time.
>
> Jim
> >
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

BFD. I've still been sailing longer even if I believed the 25 years.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jonathan Ganz wrote:
>
> > Wow. Two WHOLE DAYS!
>
> Add to that 25 years of sailing.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> Yes folks, this is some expert!
> >
> > You didn't ace the test. You missed 2% (assuming we believe
> > you, which we don't).
> >
>

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>
> >
> > you don't get 'sailing'.
>
> Really? I've probably been sailing longer than you have.


and you still haven't caught on? That's a shame.

[Scott Vernon]

"Jim Cate" > wrote
>
>
> So you prefer to run away from my question, right BB? Do you REALLY
> think that Roger M would post statements like that on this ng?
>
> Jimbo


why wouldn't he? he knows there's more than enough blind idiots to buy his
boats.

[Scott Vernon]

Jon, you old fart.

I've got 28 in.


"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...
> BFD. I've still been sailing longer even if I believed the 25 years.
>
> --
> "j" ganz @@
> www.sailnow.com
>
> "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> >
> > > Wow. Two WHOLE DAYS!
> >
> > Add to that 25 years of sailing.
> >
> > Jim
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes folks, this is some expert!
> > >
> > > You didn't ace the test. You missed 2% (assuming we believe
> > > you, which we don't).
> > >
> >
>
>

[Jonathan Ganz]

I believe even murders get paroled after 25.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
...
> Jon, you old fart.
>
> I've got 28 in.
>
>
> "Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > BFD. I've still been sailing longer even if I believed the 25 years.
> >
> > --
> > "j" ganz @@
> > www.sailnow.com
> >
> > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > >
> > > Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> > >
> > > > Wow. Two WHOLE DAYS!
> > >
> > > Add to that 25 years of sailing.
> > >
> > > Jim
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes folks, this is some expert!
> > > >
> > > > You didn't ace the test. You missed 2% (assuming we believe
> > > > you, which we don't).
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>

[Scott Vernon]

I'm married, that's life w/out parole.

S
"Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
...
> I believe even murders get paroled after 25.
>
> --
> "j" ganz @@
> www.sailnow.com
>
> "Scott Vernon" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Jon, you old fart.
> >
> > I've got 28 in.
> >
> >
> > "Jonathan Ganz" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > BFD. I've still been sailing longer even if I believed the 25 years.
> > >
> > > --
> > > "j" ganz @@
> > > www.sailnow.com
> > >
> > > "Jim Cate" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jonathan Ganz wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Wow. Two WHOLE DAYS!
> > > >
> > > > Add to that 25 years of sailing.
> > > >
> > > > Jim
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Yes folks, this is some expert!
> > > > >
> > > > > You didn't ace the test. You missed 2% (assuming we believe
> > > > > you, which we don't).
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>