BoatBanter.com - View Single Post

JimC

wrote:

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]

Martin Baxter wrote:

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,

Nope. Never stated or inferred that he would have been "fine."

But ignoring the point without the ability to carry 5 tons of cargo,
there would have been zero point in taking a Mac26X~M on such a voyage
in the first place.

Actually, he didn't do a very good job of carrying the cargo on Red
Cloud either. I suppose that there may have been some ocean creatures
that got to enjoy some of his coffee.

... 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.

Got that right.
JimC isn't so much arguing the merits of the Mac26X~M as he is
delivering a sermon to us heathens. You gotta BELIEVE!!

Nope. I'm simply pointing out all the unsupported assertions that have
been used to to "prove" the various anti-Mac positions. Follow the
unsupported assertions with some sarcasm and some "ha ha ha"s, and you
have a slam dunk that gets you some atta-boys from your fellow MacBashers.

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.

Actually, I never said it was a blue water boat in the first place. Not
so "mysterious" at all.

I think church may be out, JimC seems to have left the pulpit.
"Suitable for coastal sailing" is a bit of an exaggeration, much less
offshore & ocean crossing. I've seen the things struggling... and
having pieces break off... in average coastal/sheltered conditions,
say 15 knot winds and 3 foot seas.

But they didn't sink, did they?

One reason why MacGregor Co. upgraded the original Mac26X to the "new
improved" 26M is that they suffered almost universal steering failure,
the helm was the cheapest & smallest motorboat unit available and no
part of the steering was built to handle normal sailing loads.

"Universal failures?" - Gross exaggeration.

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.

You seem to forget that the assertions (other than my assertion that I
thought a Mac 26 would have stayed afloat) weren't made by me at all.
The assertions, for example,those about the Macs coming apart and
rolling over and over like a washing machine, were made by Ganz and a
few others. All I have done is to point out to those making such
assertions that they have provided little if any supporting evidence.

Just because they bought a Mac26 doesn't mean they are stupid... just
that they are easily conned... and as JimC shows, the true faithful
would rather preach endlessly to us unwashed sinners than actually go
out sailing in real wind.

Not at all. I'm all in favor of ng participants getting their boats out
as often as possible.

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.

= On the other hand, one can ask those making wild and totally
unsupported assertions to back up their various assertions. It's a quite
rational and appropriate request.

Incidentally, it's becoming quite evident that you and others are
becoming increasingly frustrated and disturbed that this discussion is
still in progress, and that you haven't been able to put me down. But
that's your problem, not mine. -Deal with it.

Jim