Where did you state that you were the biggest idiot to
visit this ng since 1997?
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


felton wrote:

On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:45:13 -0500, Jim Cate wrote:



Jonathan Ganz wrote:


I agree...

But have you sailed a Valiant 40, or any discplacement boat of similar
size, in 30-ft breaking waves Ganz? It does some pretty strange things.
And if it goes over, the 10,000-lb keel quickly pulls the boat to the
bottom of the ocean.

Jim


While there have been reports of Valiants being rolled, none have ever
gone to the bottom. Why you persist in claiming that the Mac is a
more seaworthy boat has to be the most absurd thing ever posted in
this group, and that is really saying something.


Where did I state that I thought the Mac is a more seaworthy boat than
the Valiant?

Jim

I don't mean to speak for Scott, but what he's trying to tell you
is that you're stupid.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:

Jim, you are the funniest thing to hit this NG for a long time. Thanks
for
the laughs.



In other words, you can't come up with a substantve response to my note.
Is that what you're trying to tell us, Scott?

Jim

Actually, you're an idiot MacBoy.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You're full of it. The Valient has a host of great sailing
and construction pluses. The Mac has NONE of these.
The Mac is garbage, which isn't fit to sink in the wake
of a Valient, even though it likely would at the very
first opportunity.


Actually, you again have got it all wrong, Johnathan. Wrong again!

It would be an endless journey on a Mac.

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

They have assured me that it is a great boat in which to
sail or motor out to Catalina island (25 miles out).

Perhaps you should look at a map, Jim. Catalina is somewhat closer than 25
miles
from the mainland - its more like 18 miles. Perhaps it just feels like 25
miles
in a Mac.

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

That's right Horass! I don't know anyone named PC and
I've never heard of Practial Saior. Is the latter your boyfriend?

John, let someone else explain it to you.

I'm responding to some 20 irate, irrational asa contributors who are
obviously getting more and more stressed out as they realize that they
haven't been able to put me down or drive me away, and probably won't.
For obvious reasons, I sometimes don't have the time to check spelling
and grammar.

Your problem is understandable, John. - A Mac enthusiast still here and
still going strong after all those attacks! Think about it. - You are
being reduced to sputtering and snarling and posting more and more
childish, senseless, non substantive personal attacks and insults. Think
of how this makes you look to readers around the world! Do you have no
self respect whatsoever? (Have you considered getting professional help
John?)

By the way, it should be pointed out that there are others on the ng who
seem to be fairly rational, even human, and from whom I get helpful
information from time to time.

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

When you have an iq as low as he does, I'm not astonished by this.


Interesting. From all the objective tests I've taken, my IQ is above
average. With respect to sailing know-how, I recently took the ASA basic
sailing course again as a review and scored 98. My supervisor and
professional colleagues seem to be reasonably satisfied with my work.
Sounds like it's only in your opinion, and that of a few of your
buddies, that I have a problem, John.

Jim

Wally wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


However, there
were several features on the Mac 26x that I didn't like.


What things on the 26x didn't you like?


I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)

I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
versatility for motoring without the water ballast.

I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability. The new
deep-V hull is more efficient going through chop under power, and has
good sailing characteristics, according to owners with whom I have
spoken. (It is reported as loosing a little in top speed under power,
which I can accept in view of the more comfortable and stable ride in
heavy weather.)

The interior of the 26x seemed cramped to me, and the seating was
somewhat uncomfortable. The new boat is more roomy, more pleasant, and
more comfortable, in my opinion.

Does that answer your question? Or were you hoping to get another answer.

Jim

Scott Vernon wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote

When I have asked them if the boat is suitable for coastal
cruising in blue water, they have told me that this is exactly what it's
designed for.


and you believed them??????

Scott, you obviously don't get it. The point in this particular exchange
isn't whether the boat is suitable for blue water sailing, it's whether
the note purportedly posted by Roger MacGregor was a farce. (Which it
obviously was.) My response pointed out that MacGregor reps and
MacGregor dealers are promoting the boat as a coastal cruiser capable of
going off-shore, and that nothing in their literature warns that the
boat shouldn't be taken out beyond a three mile limit. So, had the note
actually been posted by Roger, it would have been an admission that he
had some serious legal problems. (Incidentally, whoever posted the note
assuming Roger's identity on a public forum may indeed have some legal
issues.)

You're rather slow, aren't you Scotty? I suggest that you take the time
to read the notes more carefully and give it a little thought before you
barge in and waste everyone's time with off-topic remarks like those.

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
I didn't like the swing keel and open keel chamber in the bottom of the
hull. - On the 26M, it has been replaced by a more narrow, dagger
board, providing better upwind performance (from everyone I have talked
with who has sailed the boat), and it be raised or lowered incrementally
to more closely match the current conditions. (The swing keel, if not
kept in the fully down position, would alter the center of resistance.)

Although I generally prefer the daggerboard, the ability to shift the CLF
(Center of Lateral Resistance) aft is very handy.



I also didn't like the idea of relying totally on the water ballast. -
The 26M includes both water and permanent ballast, and provides more
versatility for motoring without the water ballast.

The permanent ballast was required because the V hull raised the Center of
Gravity too much.



I also had problems with the hull shape, which was relatively flat
throughout the length of the boat for enhanced planing ability.

Meaning the new hull will not plane as easily.

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Where did you state that you were the biggest idiot to
visit this ng since 1997?

In other words, you don't have a substantive response to my note. Is
that what you were trying to say, Johathan?

As sicsussed in detail elsewhere, I am a major enthusiast regarding
Valiant boats, for a number of reasons. They are a great blue water boat.

Jim