"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Who are you talking about? If you take the time to read my note, I never
suggested that popularity of the Macs equals quality. The point of the
above discussion was to point out that, if the ridiculous statements
about Macs being under built were true, BECAUSE there are thousands of
them out there, we would have hundreds of reports every year about Macs
breaking up and owners and passengers being lost.

This is just one more example of the total lack of intellectual honesty
of some participants on this ng. You can't dig much dirt out of what I
say, so you deliberately lie about it and twist the discussion around to
what you would have like for me to have said, but didn't.


So you're saying that if less than 10% of the boats break up and cause
fatalities, that's an acceptable ratio for you?

This is just one more example of your flawed logic, and lack of intellectual
honesty. Frankly, even one incident is enough to ring major alarms, especially
when it shows that the warnings ARE deadly serious.

BTW, you asked when you made your comments poo-pooing the warnigns. It was
April 11 - here's more of the exchange with me:

Me:
The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments
include:
no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't even
stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward bunks
when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So much
for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone
might
grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat, nor
is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.

You:
Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.

Jeff Morris wrote:

Actually Jim, keeping the coffee at 185 degrees burns it and produces inferior
coffee. It was far too hot to be consumed, and thus Mac was negligent. This
could explain why they lost the case.

So why did you get the basic facts of the wrong, Jim? I guess you don't like to
get confused my them.


I got the basic fact right, Jeff. (I didn't mention the fact that
MacDonals served their coffee hot, since most people would naturally
assume that coffee IS going to be hot, unless you ask for iced coffee.)
The basic fact, once again, are that this stupid bitch put the cup of
coffee between her legs while she was preoccupied with something else in
the vehicle (whether or not she was driving is really of no consequence
to the story.) As I understood it, she was busy applying her makeup
while supporting the cup of coffee in her crotch.

The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury
with inflammatory pictures of her burns, and got a punitive judgment
against MacDonalds that was based on their emotional reaction to the
pictures, and not on any rational consideration of whether MacDonalds,
or the lady, was negligent. - This was confirmed when the award was
substantially reduced on appeal.

The BASIC FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive
measures resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our
economy for both small and large business, and in particular, a major
reason our medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of
lawsuits like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added
costs to business, and where they relate to medical issues, a major
factor in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical
insurance, which are rising to levels beyond what many people can
afford. It's also a major factor in the precarious status of Medicare,
care for the indigent, etc., Costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds
suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can
safely hold between our legs while we ride in our car. - Does that give
you some nice warm fuzzies Jeff?

Jim


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!


Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of
that, Jonathan?

And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held
it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs.

Jim

Jeff, I've been watching the Democratic convention this week so I
haven't had much time to check in to the ng very often. Glancing over
your notes, I see that your comments are as vacuous as always, however.

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the Macgregor
warnings:

"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort lawyers?

If

you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally, are
something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to be

sure to

wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment. Or,

like

the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical

appliance,

audio equipment, etc. "

Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****?

Nope. I take the warnings quite seriously. However, I also recognize
that one of the purposes of the warnings is to minimize the possibility
of tort actions against Mac.


You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the warnings
were something that could be ignored. Now you're admitted they are deadly
serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of ****
from the beginning! This is a Slam Dunk, you just Screwed the Pooch, your
client was sent to the chair!

You're going to squirm, claiming you never said to ignore the warnings. SO are
you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another
sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means.

Really, Jeff? And WHICH PART OF THE WARNING should I pay the closest
attention to? The part that tells me never to sail or motor the boat
without the water ballast? Or the part that refers me to the
instructions on how to sail and motor the boat without the water ballast?








Actually, while I think the skipper should go to jail for Boating While
Intoxicated, the family of the children might have a rather good case. The

boat

was not going fast, the conditions were calm, and while the boat might have

been

overloaded according to the warnings, most people probably wouldn't think 8
adults on deck is too much for a 26 foot sailboat. I'll bet hundreds of

people

saw them that night and probably no one commented that it looks dangerously
overloaded. OTOH, I've frequently seen smaller boats that appeared

overloaded,

but I've almost never seem them spontaneously rollover.

While acknowledging that I havent' read the transcript and wasn't there
at the trial, that's not the story I see quoted from various news
articles. For example:

Published April 30, 2004

MIDDLEBURY -- Four law-enforcement officers testified Thursday that the
skipper of a boat that capsized on Lake Champlain, killing two Charlotte
children, was extraordinarily drunk the night of the accident.

The testimony from three police officers and one U.S. Coast Guard
official came on the second day of George Dean Martin's trial in Vermont
District Court in Middlebury.

Martin, 48, of Charlotte has pleaded not guilty to two counts of boating
while intoxicated with death resulting in the July 4, 2002, drownings of
Trevor Mack, 4, and his sister Melissa Mack, 9. Each count carries up to
five years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

Addison County prosecutors contend Martin was so drunk that he operated
the boat improperly by MAKING A SHARP LEFT TURN AND GUNNINIG THE
ENGINE,WHICH CAUSED THE VESSEL TO CAPSIZE. Defense attorneys argue that
the boat -- a combination motorboat and sailboat called a MacGregor 26
-- was inherently unsafe and prone to tip with more than four people aboard.

Martin and 10 PASSENGERS were on the vessel that night. They set out
toward Diamond Island to watch Independence Day fireworks. The boat
flipped as Martin began steering the MacGregor back toward shore.

Mike Fish, a Colchester police detective who responded to the scene and
interviewed Martin on land shortly after the accident, said Martin was
"substantially intoxicated."

"He was swaying back and forth like a breeze blowing a small sapling,"
Fish testified.



Yes, I only saw an initial report which made it sound like he was still at
anchor. He had actually left the raft up and made the mistake of turning too
quickly. I said there were 8 adults on deck and three small children below,
that's what the report says. While the children count as "passengers" their
total weight was probably about 100 pounds, and being near the waterline
shouldn't contribute much to the unbalance.

Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are 8
adults on deck? Only one that I know of. And its the one that you keep
claiming is very stable. And sadly, 2 children were trapped below, even
though there were numerous people there trying to rescue them, even though the
boat had a double hull and foam flotation.


I'm gratified to see that you will at least admit you were wrong on some
occasions, Jeff. Yes, the skipper was apparently gunning the motor
trying to make a turn or get back to port.

Jeff, if you have sailed on a Mac 26, it will be apparent that the deck
is very small, certainly far too small for a crowd of eight adults. (And
since the skipper was drunk, I assume that some of the passengers would
have been drinking also.) It should have been obvious to any responsible
skipper that this was an a clearly unsafe condition, particularly since
the boat wasn't sitting at anchor but being turned around under power to
get back. Although we don't know the exact facts of the accident, ANY
small boat can be capsized with that much load under at least SOME
conditions, e.g., if most of the weight is on one side during a turn, or
if they are holding onto the mast pulling it over, etc. (Jeff, if the
Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of
reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the
other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently
unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of
such reports every year.)

Face it, Jeff, the facts are that the skipper was drunk, gunning the
engine, making a turn with an overloaded boat, and totally disregarding
the most basic safety principles. Regarding the boat itself, I note
that the flotation system apparently kept the boat afloat even in such
severe and overloaded conditions. Had it not been for the particular
design of the Mac26X with it's flotation backup and lack of a weighted
keel, the boat would have probably sunk, drowning the skipper and the
eight adults sitting on the deck. - Think of the headlines, Jeff,
"sailboat capsizes and is dragged to the bottom by its heavy keel
(negligent design?) drowning all eight passengers."

I suppose that in one respect the story is a further affirmation of the
potential value of the improvements made in the new 26M, which
incorporates an additional 300 pounds of permanent ballast in its hull
and additional flotation in the upper mast, making it an even safer boat
than the 26X.

Jim

Yes, that's exactly what you're saying. Macs are crapola boats.
They are not seaworthy in all but the most benign conditions.
Their rigs are small and flimsy. They are crap boats. You're the
one being dishonest or stupid.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Who are you talking about? If you take the time to read my note, I never
suggested that popularity of the Macs equals quality. The point of the
above discussion was to point out that, if the ridiculous statements
about Macs being under built were true, BECAUSE there are thousands of
them out there, we would have hundreds of reports every year about Macs
breaking up and owners and passengers being lost.

This is just one more example of the total lack of intellectual honesty
of some participants on this ng. You can't dig much dirt out of what I
say, so you deliberately lie about it and twist the discussion around to
what you would have like for me to have said, but didn't.

Jim


Jonathan Ganz wrote:
Clearly, you're not much of a sailor if you think that popularity equals
quality. I know one of the major Mac dealers in the western US. Even
he admits that they're not much a sailboat.

You're the idiot who bought one. Look up your own stats. Seems to
me that you're trying to hide your embarrassment by claiming all sorts
of things that aren't true.

Wow. What a humanitarian. She was old and feeble, she was
severely burned by a company that new full well there was a
problem, but you call her a stupid bitch. Of course, this is the
same guy who shills for Macs and was stupid enough to actually
buy one.

I think we got the basic facts about you right.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

Actually Jim, keeping the coffee at 185 degrees burns it and produces
inferior
coffee. It was far too hot to be consumed, and thus Mac was negligent.
This
could explain why they lost the case.

So why did you get the basic facts of the wrong, Jim? I guess you don't
like to
get confused my them.


I got the basic fact right, Jeff. (I didn't mention the fact that
MacDonals served their coffee hot, since most people would naturally
assume that coffee IS going to be hot, unless you ask for iced coffee.)
The basic fact, once again, are that this stupid bitch put the cup of
coffee between her legs while she was preoccupied with something else in
the vehicle (whether or not she was driving is really of no consequence
to the story.) As I understood it, she was busy applying her makeup
while supporting the cup of coffee in her crotch.

The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury
with inflammatory pictures of her burns, and got a punitive judgment
against MacDonalds that was based on their emotional reaction to the
pictures, and not on any rational consideration of whether MacDonalds,
or the lady, was negligent. - This was confirmed when the award was
substantially reduced on appeal.

The BASIC FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive
measures resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our
economy for both small and large business, and in particular, a major
reason our medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of
lawsuits like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added
costs to business, and where they relate to medical issues, a major
factor in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical
insurance, which are rising to levels beyond what many people can
afford. It's also a major factor in the precarious status of Medicare,
care for the indigent, etc., Costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds
suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can
safely hold between our legs while we ride in our car. - Does that give
you some nice warm fuzzies Jeff?

Jim


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:


My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts.
Macboy is quite an attorney!


Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of
that, Jonathan?

And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held
it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs.

Jim

Well, we can see that you're quite a sailor. I'm sure you can find
a couple of other excuses for not sailing.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Jeff, I've been watching the Democratic convention this week so I
haven't had much time to check in to the ng very often. Glancing over
your notes, I see that your comments are as vacuous as always, however.

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the
Macgregor
warnings:

"Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers?

If

you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally,
are
something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to
be

sure to

wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment.
Or,

like

the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical

appliance,

audio equipment, etc. "

Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****?

Nope. I take the warnings quite seriously. However, I also recognize
that one of the purposes of the warnings is to minimize the possibility
of tort actions against Mac.


You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the
warnings
were something that could be ignored. Now you're admitted they are
deadly
serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full
of ****
from the beginning! This is a Slam Dunk, you just Screwed the Pooch,
your
client was sent to the chair!

You're going to squirm, claiming you never said to ignore the warnings.
SO are
you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just
another
sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means.

Really, Jeff? And WHICH PART OF THE WARNING should I pay the closest
attention to? The part that tells me never to sail or motor the boat
without the water ballast? Or the part that refers me to the
instructions on how to sail and motor the boat without the water ballast?








Actually, while I think the skipper should go to jail for Boating While
Intoxicated, the family of the children might have a rather good case.
The

boat

was not going fast, the conditions were calm, and while the boat might
have

been

overloaded according to the warnings, most people probably wouldn't
think 8
adults on deck is too much for a 26 foot sailboat. I'll bet hundreds
of

people

saw them that night and probably no one commented that it looks
dangerously
overloaded. OTOH, I've frequently seen smaller boats that appeared

overloaded,

but I've almost never seem them spontaneously rollover.

While acknowledging that I havent' read the transcript and wasn't there
at the trial, that's not the story I see quoted from various news
articles. For example:

Published April 30, 2004

MIDDLEBURY -- Four law-enforcement officers testified Thursday that the
skipper of a boat that capsized on Lake Champlain, killing two Charlotte
children, was extraordinarily drunk the night of the accident.

The testimony from three police officers and one U.S. Coast Guard
official came on the second day of George Dean Martin's trial in Vermont
District Court in Middlebury.

Martin, 48, of Charlotte has pleaded not guilty to two counts of boating
while intoxicated with death resulting in the July 4, 2002, drownings of
Trevor Mack, 4, and his sister Melissa Mack, 9. Each count carries up to
five years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

Addison County prosecutors contend Martin was so drunk that he operated
the boat improperly by MAKING A SHARP LEFT TURN AND GUNNINIG THE
ENGINE,WHICH CAUSED THE VESSEL TO CAPSIZE. Defense attorneys argue that
the boat -- a combination motorboat and sailboat called a MacGregor 26
-- was inherently unsafe and prone to tip with more than four people
aboard.

Martin and 10 PASSENGERS were on the vessel that night. They set out
toward Diamond Island to watch Independence Day fireworks. The boat
flipped as Martin began steering the MacGregor back toward shore.

Mike Fish, a Colchester police detective who responded to the scene and
interviewed Martin on land shortly after the accident, said Martin was
"substantially intoxicated."

"He was swaying back and forth like a breeze blowing a small sapling,"
Fish testified.



Yes, I only saw an initial report which made it sound like he was still
at
anchor. He had actually left the raft up and made the mistake of
turning too
quickly. I said there were 8 adults on deck and three small children
below,
that's what the report says. While the children count as "passengers"
their
total weight was probably about 100 pounds, and being near the waterline
shouldn't contribute much to the unbalance.

Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are
8
adults on deck? Only one that I know of. And its the one that you keep
claiming is very stable. And sadly, 2 children were trapped below,
even
though there were numerous people there trying to rescue them, even
though the
boat had a double hull and foam flotation.


I'm gratified to see that you will at least admit you were wrong on some
occasions, Jeff. Yes, the skipper was apparently gunning the motor
trying to make a turn or get back to port.

Jeff, if you have sailed on a Mac 26, it will be apparent that the deck
is very small, certainly far too small for a crowd of eight adults. (And
since the skipper was drunk, I assume that some of the passengers would
have been drinking also.) It should have been obvious to any responsible
skipper that this was an a clearly unsafe condition, particularly since
the boat wasn't sitting at anchor but being turned around under power to
get back. Although we don't know the exact facts of the accident, ANY
small boat can be capsized with that much load under at least SOME
conditions, e.g., if most of the weight is on one side during a turn, or
if they are holding onto the mast pulling it over, etc. (Jeff, if the
Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of
reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the
other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently
unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of
such reports every year.)

Face it, Jeff, the facts are that the skipper was drunk, gunning the
engine, making a turn with an overloaded boat, and totally disregarding
the most basic safety principles. Regarding the boat itself, I note
that the flotation system apparently kept the boat afloat even in such
severe and overloaded conditions. Had it not been for the particular
design of the Mac26X with it's flotation backup and lack of a weighted
keel, the boat would have probably sunk, drowning the skipper and the
eight adults sitting on the deck. - Think of the headlines, Jeff,
"sailboat capsizes and is dragged to the bottom by its heavy keel
(negligent design?) drowning all eight passengers."

I suppose that in one respect the story is a further affirmation of the
potential value of the improvements made in the new 26M, which
incorporates an additional 300 pounds of permanent ballast in its hull
and additional flotation in the upper mast, making it an even safer boat
than the 26X.

Jim

snip (Jeff, if the
Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of
reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the
other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently
unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of
such reports every year.)

I'm curious about something here. The implication of this statement seems to
be that a capsize typically will result in a fatality and hence would be
reported. Is that a fair assumption to make? Could it not be that these
boats *do* capsize with some regularity, that no fatality or other
significant harm results, and that the capsize remains unreported? I'm not
saying that is actually the case. I'm just questioning the force of the
argument from silence that is being used here to prove the contrary (i.e.,
few *reported* capsizes = few capsizes).

--Alan Gomes

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:
Actually Jim, keeping the coffee at 185 degrees burns it and produces
inferior
coffee. It was far too hot to be consumed, and thus Mac was negligent.
This
could explain why they lost the case.

So why did you get the basic facts of the wrong, Jim? I guess you don't
like to
get confused my them.


I got the basic fact right, Jeff. (I didn't mention the fact that
MacDonals served their coffee hot, since most people would naturally
assume that coffee IS going to be hot, unless you ask for iced coffee.)

That wasn't "hot" coffee, it was "scalding" coffee, completely undrinkable and
dangerous to handle. "Unsuited for the purpose" is the term lawyers use, I
think.



The basic fact, once again, are that this stupid bitch put the cup of
coffee between her legs while she was preoccupied with something else in
the vehicle (whether or not she was driving is really of no consequence
to the story.) As I understood it, she was busy applying her makeup
while supporting the cup of coffee in her crotch.

When coffee is served in a flimsy cup to someone seating in a car, one must
consider the possibility it could get spilled.



The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury
with inflammatory pictures of her burns, and got a punitive judgment
against MacDonalds that was based on their emotional reaction to the
pictures, and not on any rational consideration of whether MacDonalds,
or the lady, was negligent. - This was confirmed when the award was
substantially reduced on appeal.

Reduced somewhat, but still a substantial penalty.


The BASIC FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive
measures resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our
economy for both small and large business, and in particular, a major
reason our medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of
lawsuits like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added
costs to business, and where they relate to medical issues, a major
factor in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical
insurance, which are rising to levels beyond what many people can
afford. It's also a major factor in the precarious status of Medicare,
care for the indigent, etc., Costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds
suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can
safely hold between our legs while we ride in our car. - Does that give
you some nice warm fuzzies Jeff?

Actually, I never buy coffee from a takeout, because I find that its too hot to
drink and by the time it cools a bit to be drinkable, I've probably spilled it!
When I first heard about this case, I thought the woman was crazy, but the more
I found out about it the clearer it seemed that Micky D's was negligent.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
....

You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the
warnings
were something that could be ignored. Now you're admitted they are deadly
serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of
****
from the beginning! This is a Slam Dunk, you just Screwed the Pooch, your
client was sent to the chair!

You're going to squirm, claiming you never said to ignore the warnings. SO
are
you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another
sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means.

Really, Jeff? And WHICH PART OF THE WARNING should I pay the closest
attention to? The part that tells me never to sail or motor the boat
without the water ballast?

That would be a good start. But since you keep quoting the speed numbers
assuming there's no risk to running without ballast, you still haven't got the
point.

I assume that in fact, you will almost always run with ballast, and will come to
realize that you cannot really go 18 knots, especially in less then ideal
situations. I think you're reallizing that already, given how fast you're
backpedaling now.


Or the part that refers me to the
instructions on how to sail and motor the boat without the water ballast?

So what's your point? Is it that even though this boat is marketed to novices,
even an experienced boater must read the manual carefully because its inherently
dangerous?


....


Yes, I only saw an initial report which made it sound like he was still at
anchor. He had actually left the raft up and made the mistake of turning
too
quickly. I said there were 8 adults on deck and three small children
below,
that's what the report says. While the children count as "passengers" their
total weight was probably about 100 pounds, and being near the waterline
shouldn't contribute much to the unbalance.

Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are 8
adults on deck? Only one that I know of. And its the one that you keep
claiming is very stable. And sadly, 2 children were trapped below, even
though there were numerous people there trying to rescue them, even though
the
boat had a double hull and foam flotation.


I'm gratified to see that you will at least admit you were wrong on some
occasions, Jeff. Yes, the skipper was apparently gunning the motor
trying to make a turn or get back to port.

Jeff, if you have sailed on a Mac 26, it will be apparent that the deck
is very small, certainly far too small for a crowd of eight adults.

They didn't say they were all on the foredeck - 4 to 6 could have been in the
cockpit. Yes it would be a bit of a crowd, but its not clear it would appear
grossly overloaded. I've sailed many times with 6 in the cockpit of a 19
footer and never felt overcrowded or at risk.


(And
since the skipper was drunk, I assume that some of the passengers would
have been drinking also.) It should have been obvious to any responsible
skipper that this was an a clearly unsafe condition, particularly since
the boat wasn't sitting at anchor but being turned around under power to
get back. Although we don't know the exact facts of the accident, ANY
small boat can be capsized with that much load under at least SOME
conditions, e.g., if most of the weight is on one side during a turn, or
if they are holding onto the mast pulling it over, etc.

You're describing the behaviour of a 15 foot centerboard boat, not a 26 foot
cruiser. I guess that is the essence of my whole point: the Mac has to be
considered as stable as small centerboard boat. But you keep billing it as a
blue water cruiser.

(Jeff, if the
Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of
reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the
other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently
unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of
such reports every year.)

There are major flaws in your logic here, Jim: First, a large number of 30,000
actually have a significant amount of hard ballast. In fact, some of his boats
have a fairly conservative design, considering where he's coming from. In fact,
the number of Max 26X's and M's is more like 5000. Secondly, I suspect that
the vast majority of 26X sailors always keep the ballast tank full. I know the
one down the dock from me fills in the spring and empties in the fall.
Corollary to this, almost all Mac sailors will admit that in practice, the top
speed is more like 10 to 12 mph, not the 18 knots you claimed on numerous
occasions.

You keep trying to make this about Macs, but its really about your
interpretation of the marketing hype. If you had said, "I probably will keep
the tanks full therefore will probably only see 12 mph under power and 6 under
sail, but that's good enough for me" I would have said, "fine, you understand
the tradeoffs and made your decision."




Face it, Jeff, the facts are that the skipper was drunk, gunning the
engine, making a turn with an overloaded boat, and totally disregarding
the most basic safety principles.

Any normal 26 foot sailboat would not have had a problem. I'll admit the
skipper was negligent, but if this was virtually any other sailboat, nothing
would have happened and two children would still be alive.

Regarding the boat itself, I note
that the flotation system apparently kept the boat afloat even in such
severe and overloaded conditions.

For any other 26 foot sailboat, this would not be a "severe and overloaded
condition."

Had it not been for the particular
design of the Mac26X with it's flotation backup and lack of a weighted
keel, the boat would have probably sunk, drowning the skipper and the
eight adults sitting on the deck.

Had it not been for the particular design of the boat, there never would have
been a problem and two children would still be alive today.

Think of the headlines, Jeff,
"sailboat capsizes and is dragged to the bottom by its heavy keel
(negligent design?) drowning all eight passengers."

Now you're claiming that a keel boat would have rolled over like that??? You
really don't know much about boats, do you Jim?



I suppose that in one respect the story is a further affirmation of the
potential value of the improvements made in the new 26M, which
incorporates an additional 300 pounds of permanent ballast in its hull
and additional flotation in the upper mast, making it an even safer boat
than the 26X.

Perhaps it was Roger's conscience speaking. Actually, I think it was driven by
the v-bottom and the taller mast. And maybe the lawyers.

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

Who are you talking about? If you take the time to read my note, I never
suggested that popularity of the Macs equals quality. The point of the
above discussion was to point out that, if the ridiculous statements
about Macs being under built were true, BECAUSE there are thousands of
them out there, we would have hundreds of reports every year about Macs
breaking up and owners and passengers being lost.

This is just one more example of the total lack of intellectual honesty
of some participants on this ng. You can't dig much dirt out of what I
say, so you deliberately lie about it and twist the discussion around to
what you would have like for me to have said, but didn't.



Do you disagree with my suggestion that, with thousands of Macs in use,
IF THERE WERE serious deficiencies in the Macs, we would have many
reports of Macs breaking up under normal weather conditions, and Onwers
and passengers being lost? IF YOU DON'T, how do you explain the fact
that thousands of Macs are sailing every year, thousands of Mac owners
are happy with them, and very few reports are received regarding Mac
failures?


So you're saying that if less than 10% of the boats break up and cause
fatalities, that's an acceptable ratio for you?

This is just one more example of your flawed logic, and lack of intellectual
honesty. Frankly, even one incident is enough to ring major alarms, especially
when it shows that the warnings ARE deadly serious.

BTW, you asked when you made your comments poo-pooing the warnigns. It was
April 11 - here's more of the exchange with me:

Me:

The Mac is clearly unsafe without its water ballast. The admonishments

include:

no more than 4 people. Keep crew aft, low and centered. The kids can't even
stay in the forward bunk! They actually tell you not to use the forward bunks
when underway! They say it is unsafe in seas higher than one foot! So much
for coming in from offshore. You can't stand on the deck because someone

might

grab the mast to hold on! What? They're afraid someone might pull the boat
over trying to hold on??? No, this is not typical of a 26 foot sailboat, nor
is it typical of a 26 foot powerboat.


You:
Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.


Jeff, do you actually believe that the warnings regarding the Mac
weren't reviewed by legal counsel? If so, I have several bridges you
might have an interst in. (Note, This DOES NOT mean that the warnings
about sailing without the water ballast shouldn't be taken seriously.)

Jim