JimC wrote:
Jeff, this note included your misleading comments on a number of
subjects, and I have tried to address most of them. Because of your
lengthy comments, the response is also lengthy. - Perhaps it would be
more helpful if you would limit each response (if you choose to respond)
to one or two subjects per note.
Jim, not a single one of my claims is misleading. Yours, on the other
hand, speak volumes about your ethics.
Jeff wrote:
Jeff wrote:
It really amazes me how you can shift positions to suit your need.
Is that what you learn in lawyer school?
Sure thing Jeff. - Of course, it's clear that you cherry-picked and
I love that expression "cherry-picked"! I think that would be a good
defense - "Your Honor, the prosecution is just cherry-picking. What
about the 6 billion people that my client didn't kill that night?"
By "cherry-picking", I refer to the fact that you keep repeating the
statement quoted below, but you totally ignore the other statements I
made during that discussion in which I said that the warnings,
Sorry, I really don't understand your point. You claimed that some of
the warnings made can be ignored, by saying there were analogous to
warnings to wear the seatbelt on an exercise machine.
particularly those relating to sailing the boat without ballast, should
be observed. - You also ignore the instructions IN THE MAC OWNERS'
MANUAL about motoring without the ballast. - Cherry-picking at it's
best, Jeff.
I'm not cherry picking, you're the one who says that some warnings can
be ignored.
- Here's my further discussion (which you conveniently ignore) of the
Mac warnings, provided to you over a year ago:
"When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.)
Gee, how many times do I have to repost your comments? I post them,
you delete them. Over and over.
- What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.
You said:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys?
Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these
warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings
posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight
training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings
you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "
Everyone, except perhaps a lying lawyer, would understand that to mean
that the warnings can be ignored. Are you telling me that you assume
everyone wears a seatbelt on the exercise machine? Are you saying
that everyone who reads that should be thinking "Yes, I always wear
the seatbelt on the exercise machine so these must be real serious
warnings"???
Do you really expect anyone to buy that Jim?
snip lawyer talk that everyone knows can be ignored
Jeff,- How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?
blah blah blah. You're arguing this as a lawyer. This is why lawyers
are considered by many to be the Scum of the Earth. Is that what you
are, Jim?
Everyone reading this knows you're digging this hole deeper and deeper
with everything you say. And yet you continue. Did they teach you
that if you lie often enough someone will believe you?
I made the point that the Mac comes with a long list of warnings not
found on other boats, and possibly not well understood by novice
boaters. You've been going around in circles now for years claiming
that first that these warnings can be ignored because they're just
lawyer talk, then saying they can't be ignored, then saying that
they're only there to protect from law suits.
The bottom line is that what I said in the beginning still holds.
substantially misrepresented what I said. I never said that the
warnings that come with a Mac can be ignored, and you know it.
Your comment was:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys?
Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these
warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings
posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight
training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings
you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "
You've tried to "un-ring this bell" many times, but I think everyone
here understands what you meant.
...
Once more, Jeff, where did I say that those warnings could be ignored?
Once more, Jim, no one is buying it.
(In other words, I didn't say they could be innored, and you can't find
any such statement.)
You said:
"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys?
Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these
warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings
posted in our health center warning us to be sure to
wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight
training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings
you get when you purchase any electrical appliance,
audio equipment, etc. "
Gee, this is easy. You're really a masochist. Or do you think ...
well, I don't know what you think. Any reasonable person would say,
"Ooops, I made a mistake, better not go there any more."
Anyone who reads this knows what you said, why one Earth would you
deny it???
...
Jeff, I asked you whether you thought MacGregors' attorneys were not
involved with the inclusion of those warnings. - You never answered me.
- Why?
What's the point? How is it relevant? Are you claiming that the
warnings can be ignored because a lawyer wrote them? Are you claiming
lawyers are liars?
And it does, though the mass aft largely comes from the 250 pound
engine hanging off the transom.
Not really. The mass aft largely comes from the crew/guests/skipper,
not the motor (unless the boat is being sailed solo). The motor is
slightly farther aft, but not much. (The captains seat is about a foot
forward of the motor.)
What a crock of ****. Do you actually read the stuff you write?
Since the moment of inertia is proportional to the square of the
distance from the center of mass, the mass of the engine is actually
equivalent to a mass 4 time larger but half the distance to the center
of mass. In other words, the engine on the stern contributes roughly
the same to the moment as crew that would equal the safe limit of the
boat.
You can't take a very light boat, and then claim that the heaviest
feasible motor hung as far aft as possible only has negligible affect.
Unless of course, you don't care if everyone thinks you're an idiot!
As should now be understood, the volume and mass of the ballast is in
an area slightly forward of amidships, rather near the mast.
No - here you're wrong. The diagram clearly shows the largest
cross-section by far at the first station, which is halfway between
the mast and the bow.
The first and second "station" are substantially the same.
You're ****ting me, right? I mean you have looked at the diagram?
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
Or are you just assuming that someone out there hasn't looked and
might believe you? The diagram pretty clearly shows a much larger
cross section at the first station, perhaps almost double that of the
second.
Additionally,
the (heavier) permanent ballast is positioned near the mast.
We're not talking about the 300 pounds of permanent ballast. We're
talking about the amount that is forward. You've got 1150 pounds to
distribute. The diagram clearly shows the largest cross section of
the tank at the first station, halfway to the bow. You're claiming
there's very little aft. That would seem to imply 300 or so pounds in
the far forward area. You can babble all you want, but it doesn't
change that fact.
http://www.macgregor26.com/drawings/drawings.htm
Moreover, the ballast tank is tapered at its forward and rear end
portions, further reducing the mass of ballast spaced furthest from
the central or largest portion, thereby lessening the moment of
inertia of the ballast when the boat pitches upon a wave, etc.
Nice words, but wrong. Anyone can clearly see that you're wrong, so
why do you can insisting otherwise? Much of the mass of the tank is
in the forward 20% of the boat. Because the tank is on the
centerline, there is little tapering forward until you get very close
to the bow.
Look again, Jeff. The tank is tapered in both the vertical and
horizontal directions or axes. The bottom of the tank curves upwardly
sharply as it approaches the bow.
The largest cross section is already way forward. QED. End of story.
The best that you can claim is that there isn't much in the last
few inches. This is hundreds of pounds of ballast where a normally
ballasted boat has no extra mass.
Actually, the tapering has little affect until the last few feet.
In the Mac, the "last few feet" comprise a substantialy proportion of
the distance from the mast to the bow.
yada yada yada. We're talking distance from center of mass which is
the center of flotation. If there is nothing submerged, that implies
that the center of mass is further aft. You loose.
Jeff, you again misquote what I said to make your point. - I never
said that the "entire boat" was protected by a doubled hull. Only
that adjacent the ballast tank. - Do you have any ethics at all?
Once again, we have a case of you making a claim of and inner and
outer hull and than after you were called on that you started
backpedaling and trying to explain that its only the vulnerable part
that is "protected."
You quote from an ongoing discussion on this ng as if every time I post,
they each of my notes should be scrutinized and foot-noted, as if I were
drafting a legal brief to be sent to the Supreme Court. In the
discussion to which you refer, I made the point that the Mac has what is
in essence a double hull. - WHICH IS TRUE. Then, during the ongoing
discussion, I explained that the ballast tank served to provide the same
function as a double hull, in that if the outer hull below the tank was
compromised, water would not be let into the hull. Jeff, don't you think
that you ought to refer to my comments during the entire discussion,
conducted months ago, rather than leap gleefully on one introductory
comment of mine? From an ethical standpoint, wouldn't that be the thing
to do?
why? It doesn't change anything. You tried to claim:
"the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank."
You were quite happy to leave the reader with the impression that this
is a double hull, which has a very specific meaning in marine
terminology. This is 6 months after I, and others, had already called
you on this, so if this does not make you a blatant liar, I don't know
what does.
In fact, now you're claiming that its only a small portion
that is protected.
Nope. It's rather a large portion. - (In fact, you claimed the ballast
extended along the entire length of the boat.)
Yes I did, and you corrected me on that.
BTW, what the area is, it doesn't include the majority of the outside
waterline, since the ballast runs down the center. Every case I've
ever seen of a major hull breech has been on the side where there is
no protection.
There are two basic facts he First, the water
ballast does not extend the full width, it is concentrated in the
middle, so that any blow off the centerline is not protected. And
while the bow area is protected, at high speed that is lifted out of
the water and thus needs no protection.
If the bow is lifted out of the water, the Mac "double hull" can provide
protection if the boat runs into or over a floating object. - My
experience is that some of them are hard to see, even at slow speeds.
If this is such a strong feature, why is it never mentioned in the Mac
literature. Could it be that its a bogus safety feature?
And now you're claiming there is little
protection aft.
Most impact would occur forward of amidships, Jeff. - Unless you were
sailing backwards.
This is clearly not true for a boat that is planing.
And the second point is that MacGregor itself never
touts this as a feature - it one that you made made up!
I didn't personally make it up. And I never said that the entire boat
has a double hull.
You were quite happy to word it in such a way as to leave that
impression, while still maintaining denyability.
You tried to sell this one and got caught, so don't complain to me
about "ethics."
The ethics problems are your own, Jeff, not mine. - See below.
Yes, we know you have no problem with ethics.
You also again cherry picked the statement you relied on, since in
later portions of that discussion some months ago I made it quite
clear that the boat didn't have a doubled hull protecting the entire
boat. - But you knew that when you decided to misrepresent and cherry
pick my statement, didn't you Jeff? You shamelessly misquote and
cherry-pick when you think you can get by with it. - Do you have no
self-respect whatsoever, Jeff?
Sorry Jim, this is another bell that you can't un-ring! When you made
the comment originally you were quite happy to make it sound as if the
boat had all the protection of a double hull.
See earlier discussion. You cherry-picked one introductory statement
and ignored a numberof later ones.
So? I ignored your comments after it was pointed out that you initial
comments were bogus. Your backpedaling is not a fun target. However,
6 months later you came back again with our "double liner" comment.
It was only after it was
clear that the "protection" was very limited that you admitted that it
doesn't have what is commonly referred to as a double hull.
Here's the original note:
....
As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper
who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the
boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on
this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower
hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not
enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the
ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank.
....
It's hardly a statement that the entire boat is protected by a double hull.
First of all, that was 6 months after we had a lengthy discussion on
the topic, so you're lying when you say that was the original note.
Secondly, you obviously have no trouble wording that so that one might
assume the "double liner" actually covers the hull, not a small
portion of it. You could have easily said that there is "partial
protection" but you preferred to use terminology easily confused with
"double hull" which you know has a very specific meaning in the
nautical world.
But then, I can see how these little problems would not concern you.
Since it's proportional to the square of the distance from the axis
of pitching rotation, MacGregor's design (positioning most of the
mass near amidships rather than evenly distributed along the entire
length of the boat) was proper.
Excuse me???? What about that large mass called "the engine" which
is about 10% of the dry weight and hanging of the stern??? And what
about the huge amount of water ballast that get loaded near the bow of
the boat???
Nope.
Again, reality has no place in your logic, does it?