I agree...

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
I think we have a new leader for "Troll of the Year"!

Good one, Ed.

"Veridican" wrote in message
...

I mean, you're not really going to ask me to believe that a Valient 40
is
better off in 30 ft breaking waves than a Mac are you?

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

You are a total fool. Why would I want to sail a boat in 30 foot breaking
waves? And, even if I did, it would not go to the bottom unless, like you,
I was stupid enough to let the water below decks.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

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.

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

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

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

So, you admit that you lied?

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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