Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one
factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation,
the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom
by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your
no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting
childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a
decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter,
so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry.

Jim



Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the
conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal
(even he isn't suicidal).

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the pounding
it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be dismasted for sure.
Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an option), your only chance
for survival would be below decks, while the boat rolled over and over and
over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time to time. It would be like being in
a washing machine with heavy and sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a
non-habitable environment of flying hazards including yourself that would
break your bones into mush. In desperation to escape, you would vacate the
premises, and then either be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you
would remove yourself from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't
survive.



Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac
200 miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID
say was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have
stayed afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf
by a heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his
no-boat-at-all, he could spend more of his time sailing instead of
posting negative, critical notes on this ng.)

You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over,
perhaps even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion,
and actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the
case. But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you
have to support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against
the Macs that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you
don't think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative
bull**** posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and
assuming that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an
empty ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm
anchor), do you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting
your assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll
over and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps
pitchpoll? If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's
see the evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say
that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is
your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion?

And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE,
OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.

In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact
remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the
only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.

Jim