Because he's a lying coward.

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

"Wally" wrote in message
...
Jim Cate wrote:

Notes like this are so vague
and indefinite that they just tend to raise questions about the
writer.

Why didn't you answer the question that I put to you a while ago?


--
Wally
www.artbywally.com
www.wally.myby.co.uk/music

Actually, it was quite substantive. You're just too stupid to
understand.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You should pay more attention to what people are telling
you. You're the childish asshole, going on and on about a
piece of junk boat and pie-in-the-sky adventures you'll
never take.

ANOTHER non substantive personal attack, Johnathan. Could you possibly
be just a little more specific? Notes like this are so vague
and indefinite that they just tend to raise questions about the
writer. - In other words, if you had anything to say, other than your
usual personal harangue, why didn't you say it?

jim

By going on and on about a piece of junk, which you bought and
now are trying to justify.

GIVE US A GOOD REASON MACBOY.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

You are so stupid that it's beyond belief.

How can you possibly believe that, or post such a remark on this ng?
What, in particular, have I posted that would suggest that I'm stupid
beyond believe.

BE SPECIFIC FOR A CHANGE, ASSHOLE.

Jim

In that case, sell it immediately. DON'T SAIL IT MACBOY.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

If you consider that the Mac is much lighter, with much smaller sails,
it's likely that it may ride over some waves that your boat may try to
"bore through." Not in great comfort, admittedly.




You're missing the point, Jim. My boat is extremely light for its
size -
lighter than the mac in some ways (50% more length, more than twice the
beam,
but a weight of only 8800 lbs). Diving through waves is more a function
of the
wave shape - in strong current against strong wind situations the wave
length
gets compressed, the heights grow, and the wave face appears "vertical."
Inevitably, you surf down one and slam into the base of the next faster
than you
can rise up over them. There is also risk to going over the top, since
at best,
you will pound hard on the other side, but at worst, you can get twisted
sideways and roll over.

OK. I didn't know what boat you had. Obviously, I'll want to respect
the limiations of the 26-foot boat.

Jim

Huh?? Most weather is unexpected? I guess you have to be
prepared for anything, even the possibility that the MAC IS
A CRAP BOAT AND YOU ARE A LIAR.

Interesting how you comment on all my posts, even though
they're not substantive.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

What about "unexpected weather"???

Most weather is "unexpected" in our area. My point is that I intend to
be very conservative in going out when the weather is questionable, and
to motor back soon when the forecast indicates worsening conditions. I
intend to reef early and substantially, and stay close to shore if the
weather becomes questionable.

On the other hand, I don't intend to stay off the blue water because
there might be "unexpected" changes in the weather. As I've told you
several times, John, if I perish at sea, you won't have to stick around
posting notes on this discussion string anymore. You seem to have become
compulsive about the whole thing, and you can't seem to let it go. -
Seems to me that you ought to be encouraging me and urging me on.

Jim

Well, if you need any encouragement from us 20 who are
telling you over and over that your Mac is junk....

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

.... However,I think I've made it clear that I intend to be very
conservative when going off-shore, to reef early, and substantially,
if there is any question of threatening weather.


Unfortunately, neither "being conservative" nor reefing will help if
conditions are such that you're going to get solid water over the deck.
Just last week I was talking to a nice man who was bringing in a heavy
traditional cutter. He had been out in fairly common conditions, a
spring cold front, which kicked up waves big enough to roll over his
foredeck. One peeled open his fore hatch, which was a big surprise to
his fiancee sleeping in the V-berth.

Well, I'm prepared to die. But I don't intend to stop sailing in blue
water because there is a chance that heavy weather might develop. As
indicated above, I intend to reef early, stay close to shore, and head
back to shore early if changes are observed or predicted.

Jim



A Mac 26M (having pretty much the same hull as the 26X) has enough
reserve bouyancy to survive such an incident... as long as the water
coming in didn't compromise the stability (water ballast and all
that)...

Fresh Breezes- Doug King



Ultimately, however, if an emergency arose despite all of the above, I
would rather have some water in the V-berth than wallow around without
a sea anchor.

Jim

Jim

I've been here long before you arrived, and I'll be here long
after you go. You're a piker compared to some of the others
who couldn't hack it and folded.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.

Really? Then why are you here, still sticking around? If it were a rout,
it would have been finished long ago. - You just can't leave it alone,
can you John?

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

This isn't a discussion fool. This is a rout.

If so, why are you still sticking around"

Actually, that's not true, even in my case (of non-substantive posts).
The fact is that we tried to disuade you from your purchase, but it
turned out that you had already bought the junk and now seek to
justify it. So far, you haven't asked a single question that wasn't
answered in great detail. Thus, you are a MacBoy, a fool, and
stupid.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Wally wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:


... Or were you hoping to get another answer.


What sort of 'other answer' do you think I was hoping for?


Actually, I didn't say that I thought you were hoping for another
answer.


Then why ask if was hopng for another answer? What were you alluding to?


From my experience on this ng so far, around 98% of those who ask me a
question are doing so hoping that I'll goof, or make a mistake of some
type that they can then use as a "gotcha" for further ridicule or
sarcasm. In this case, I had suspected that you were expecting that I
was blowing smoke, and that I really didn't have any specific,
substantive problems with the Mac 26x.

If I was wrong in this regard, and you really aren't trying to put me
down, please accept my apologies.

Jim

Jim

Well, duh... you don't???

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Scott Vernon wrote:

check the headers and then do a Google. Roger has posted here before.


And you really believe that Roger is posting these notes? Notes stating
that: real sailors know what a "CRAPPY, SHODDY PRODUCT WE PEDDLE."
That his customers have "NO CLUE WHATSOEVER ... AS TO HOW BAD OUR BOAT
REALLY IS." And telling everyone on the www that he paid a bribe to
Practical Sailor, and paid off the DEP and OSHA?

Scott, I happen to have a bridge for sale that you might be interested
in buying.

Jim


SV


"Jim Cate" wrote

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.)