JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:


I'm not saying that there might not be such a report out there
somewhere, but so far no one on this ng has been able to produce it.

Your move.

I see no reports of flying pigs crashing to the ground, therefore pigs
can fly.

Are really that dense?

Cheers
Marty


Cute, Marty. Of course, you are evading the points made in my previous
responses as to what I DID and DID NOT say. - See below:

[snipped obfuscation]


How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion?


You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would
have been fine, and remained afloat, you then went on to imply that a
Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other
larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done. You have
defended the strength of the rigging on a Mac and again by implication
suggested that it's perfectly adequate for surviving major storms offshore.

Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not
suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings", that's a good start.

Repeatedly chanting the mantra "MAC-BASHING BUDDIES", when no one is
bashing the Mac, does not constitute a valid argument. Most of us are in
fact saying that the Mac is fine if you use it for what it was intended
to be used for. Too suggest that a Mac is a fine sailing vessel, with
the capability to survive severe weather off shore, is patently
ridiculous and simply indefensible.

Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no
case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute
proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in
ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners.

To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for
the results of a test that has yet to be conducted.

Cheers
Marty

Cheers
Marty