On Mon, 2 Jul 2007 14:46:54 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
wrote:

He's the proud owner of a gimmick boat. It's far from being seaworthy.
It's not much more seaworthy than a Mac26X, for gawd's sake. Your
defending it as seaworthy shows you're totally ignorant.

This is a good reason why many Macs are sold. Why spend extra money
on the Hake if the Mac is "almost as seaworthy?" - according to some
here, anyway.
Then there's always the "attractive lines," and "classic good looks"
comments.
Or the "My boat will sail circles around yours" remark.
Guess it just goes to show what opinions have in common with what.
I'm still in the decision mode about what my first boat will be.
Maybe, the F-24, maybe the Mac 26X/M.
Whatever it is, it'll earn my affection.
When I first looked at tri's, they didn't look attractive to me, but
since I've read of their capabilities, they look a lot better.
The Mac powersailors always looked like a homogulation to me, but not
esthetically unattractive.
I've noticed how fond I grow of the looks of dependable cars and
women, despite not being initially impressed, and I'll wager boats
follow that pattern.
Not suggesting that beauty and practicality are mutually exclusive,
but there's plenty of evidence that beauty often is only skin deep.
Scout's boat is a looker, and from what I've read, that's more than
skin deep. I considered one myself, but it would bust me.
Whatever I end up with, I'll enjoy it if I use it.
That's the bottom line for me.
Whatever a boat does best, it's all wasted if the sails are always
bagged - or in the case of a Mac, the motor always idle.
Even incipient-reef liveaboard boats can suit a purpose.
But boats that are seldom visited and never sailed are no better than
derelicts until they are unloaded for some cash.
So it's real nice to hear your boat in the water, Scout.
Being the sailors they are, I know Rob and Wilbur are happy about that
too. How could it be otherwise?

--Vic