Jeff wrote:
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,
Looks like you erased all my additional remarks POSTED IN THAT
DISCUSSION stating that the warnings should NOT be ignored. ... Why
would you do a pitiful, sneaky thing like that Jeff?? You talk about
layers' ethics. - What about your own???
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.
You are certainly cherry picking. - You quote my initial statement about
lawyers being involved, but you erase and ignore my subsequent
statements explaing in detail what I thought about the Mac warnings.
(And as far as my own practices, I have never sailed or motored without
the ballast.) You are apparently doing your best to look for comments of
mine you can isolate and use for "gotchas", and you apparently have no
ethical qualms whatsoever about deliberately cutting out my subsequent
statements posted during that discussion.
Shame, Shame, Shame. - Pitiful!
- Here's my further discussion (which you conveniently ignore) of the
Mac warnings, provided to you over a year ago:
What was next, Jeff? - - -Is this another "clip" of material you don't
want included in the current note, Jeff?
Shame, shame shame.
"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
Interesting "snip" Jeff. You obviously don't want to remind anyone that
I posted several notes during that discussion explaining in detail my
interpretation of the MacGregor manual (which included BOTH the warning
against powering or sailing without ballast, AND ALSO an explanation of
how to motor without ballast). So you censor those statements.
Shame, shame shame! Sad, Jeff. Pitiful.
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.
Nope, I never said they could be ignored merely because they included
legal cya aspects. - See my own further comments about the subject
posted a year ago in the same discussion, partially repeated in my note
above (which you so conveniently continue to ignore.)
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.
...
In other words, I didn't say what you said I did. And I didn't make the
statement you wish I had said. And you know it.
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???
In other words, I didn't make the statement you wish I had said. Is that
about the size of it Jeff?
...
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?
Jeff, here's some of the statements you so carefully omitted from your
quotes of my previous comments:
"At page 1 of the owners manual for the 26M
it states IN BOLD, UNDERLINED PRINT, that THE BALLAST TANK SHOULD BE
FULL WHEN EITHER POWERING OR SAILING. This warning clearly states that
the tank should be full under all circumstances."
"But on the same page, the manual also states that: "THERE MAY BE TIMES
WHEN YOU WISH TO OPERATE THE BOAT WITH AN EMPTY BALLAST TANK For
example, when puling a water skier, when trying to conserve fuel, when a
faster ride is desired, ..." Obviously, when read in context, the first
statement is meant as a general warning, with apparent legal
overtones, which is expected to be read in light of the second section
dealing with operation of the boat WITHOUT the water ballast, under
certain conditions. - Once again, Jeff, the fact that the initial
warning may have been inserted at least in part with legal
considerations in mind, and the fact that I suspect it was, DOES NOT
mean that it should not be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it's clear
from the SECOND statement that, in fact, it is recognized [by MacGregor]
that the boat can be operated without the ballast under certain
conditions." Jeff,- How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?
Once more, the above statement was posted a year ago. - Why are you
still ignoring it, other than the fact that you are desperately looking
for a "gotcha". You obviously aren't willing to consider all my comments
on the subject in context.
Shame, Shame Shame!!
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.
And you did take math, and geometry in high school? Consider a typical
crew of two people (assume total weight of 350 lbs) and a skipper of 230
lbs. (about my weight). Assuming that the skipper is sitting on the
captain's chair, about 1.5 ft forward of the center of the motor, and
about 16 feet aft of the center of mass. Assuming that the two crew
members are sitting two and three feet forward of the captain,
respectively, their total mass will be the equivalent of 350 pounds
positioned about 14.5 feet from the center of mass about which the boat
has a tendency to pitch. The motor, at about 220 pounds is about 17.5
feet from the center of mass. Squaring the distances, the relative
values of the rotational momentum of the skipper and crew are more than
twice that of the motor, despite the fact that they are closer to the
center of mass. Once again, Jeff, your theories are simply wrong. (If
you wish, I'll provide the calculations and "foot pounds" or whatever,
in greater detail.)
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.
Nope. Not if you do the math.
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!
Of course, I didn't say the motor has a negligible affect [sic].
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.
Nope. You're ignoring the permanent ballast and also the fact that the
large section extends rearwardly aft of the mast.
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
Actually, the first, second, and third station are essentially the same.
- The black area in the third section represents the permanent ballast,
which is heavier than water.
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
Once again, Jeff, the ballast in the first, second, and third sectional
views are essentially the same. With the exception that the permanent
ballast has a higher density, and higher mass per unit of volume.
Additionally, the ballast tank extends somewhat aft of the third
section. The first section is actually somewhat smaller than the
second, although through something of an optical illusion it appears as
large.
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.
Wrong again, Jeff. You are apparently considering only the taper
occurring across the width of the tank. - There is also a substantial
taper in the vertical direction, when the tank is viewed from the side.
As previously discussed, the ballast tank is (already) tapering
upwardly at Section No. 1, and it continues to taper up sharply from
that point forwardly, as can be seen most clearly in the longitudinal
sectional view. I know it's a little hard for you to understand, Jeff,
but give it another try.
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.
Nope. You're clearly wrong.
QED. End of story.
The best that you can claim is that there isn't much in the last few
inches.
Last five or six feet.
This is hundreds of pounds of ballast where a normally
ballasted boat has no extra mass.
Neither does the Mac.
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.
Nope. The issue is whether the water AND permanent ballast extends
substantially along the length of the boat (as you first thought) such
that it contributes substantially to the momentum of the boat during
pitching movement. - It doesn't, and the boat doesn't pitch excessively.
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."
Once again, you come to your own interpretation of what I said, and you
try to claim that that's what I must have meant. It isn't
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.
Actually, my statement was quite accurate. The ballast does provide
protection if the lower hull is penetrated. It doesn't provide
protection if the sides or chines of the boat are penetrated, and I
never said that it did.
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.
Your welcome.
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.
In that case, you still wouldn't be out of luck on the Mac as you would
be in your own boat, Jeff, since the flotation provided in the Mac would
keep you afloat. In contrast, if you were on your own boat, the keel
would quickly pull the boat to the bottom.
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.
Actually, no. Although the bow will rise out of the water, most of the
mid portions of the boat remain at or below the surface.
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?
Actually, I didn't say it was "such a strong feature." I merely said
that it was another advantageous feature on the Mac. Obviously, it isn't
as effective as a conventional double hull, but again, most boats with
double hulls don't include flotation.
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.
Maybe, maybe not. - The Macs don't plane high out of the water like a
high-speed power boat. - They are, after all, a sailboat.
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.
Nope. That, again, was your own invention. And once more, you
conveniently ignore my previous remarks discussing the limitations of
the "double-hull" effect.
Shame, shame shame, Jeff. You censor out anything you think might
introduce a better understanding of my original discussion, and quote an
excerpt from my original note ONLY, ignoring my subsequent discussion of
the entire matter. Jeff, you apparently have no scruples whatsoever if
you think you can pretend to have found a "gotcha."
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.
Nope. you're the one with a rung bell.
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.
Because there is a double hull, over the lowermost, central portions of
the hull.
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.
...
Jeff, that's hardly a statement that the entire boat is protected by a
double
hull. And you know it.
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.
Actually, I don't. - I don't have a captains license. But, once more,
the lower portions of the hull are protected. I swear to you that I DID
NOT intend to imply the the entire boat was protected. The context of
the statement was that it was a part of a rather quick and dirty listing
of some of the Mac features, rapidly written. (This is, after all, a
newsgroup on which we can express opinions and views for mutual
entertainment, as far as I knew. I didn't consider the fact that people
like you would parse and cut apart and interpret the intended, hidden
meaning of every statement I made.)
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 distributing it 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???
The engine is closer to 5% of the weight of the boat with water ballast
and crew. But that's only an error of about 50%, Jeff. - That's rather
typical of your guestimates. Also, check out the math. - The momentum
relating to the motor is less than half that of a typical skipper and
crew, as explained above.
And what
about the huge amount of water ballast that get loaded near the bow
of the boat???
Read my notes above on that subject, Jeff.
Again, reality has no place in your logic, does it?
In contrast with your cherry-picking, your censoring out or ignoring my
statements dealing with these same issues with greater specificity, your
twisting of my original meanings, and your devious "interpretations" of
what I "must have intended" (never giving me the benefit of a doubt),
you are the one who has a problem, Jeff, not me. After twisting my
statements, censoring out anything you don't like, and reaching back to
discussions posted more than a year ago, you end up concluding
dogmatically that your own particular interpretation of what I actually
was trying to say is the only acceptable interpretation.
You are clearly the one with ethical problems, Jeff. Sad, difficult to
understand or believe, but obviously true.
Jim