"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


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


Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll? If so, well
QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac out in those
conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL

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