Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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.

Well, at least you can now buy luckwarm coffee from MacDonalds. You can
hold it between your legs and at the same time fix your hair, do your
nails, or whatever makes you happy. Right Johathan?

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

"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.


I guess it depends on what you are going to do with the coffee. If you
intend to hold it between your legs while you apply your makeup, I
suppose that lukewarm coffee is what you want. If you want hot coffee,
however, most people would want it to be a little more than lukewarm. In
any case, it's never going to be hotter than 200 degrees F, unless
you're in a pressure vessel.

Jim

Alan Gomes wrote:

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

Unless someone has the transcript of the trial, we don't have all the
facts. My point was that I don't see lots of reports about macs
capsizing,or lots of reports of drownings as a result of a supposed
faulty Mac design. My note was intended as a response to those on this
newsgroup who seem to think that posting one or two anectdotes about
problems with the Macs (or any other boat, for that matter) is "proof"
of a faulty design, etc. It isn't of course, and in the case of the
Macs, we have a much larger group of owners that must be taken into
account.

Jim

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

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.

I never said lawyers weren't invovlved. I only said they were serious warnings.
You were claiming they should not be taken literally, implying that you can't
trust anything a lawyer says.

(Note, This DOES NOT mean that the warnings
about sailing without the water ballast shouldn't be taken seriously.)

What??? How can you be so disingenuous? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer.

Remember, you said:

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.

Jim - you're the one who claimed the warnings were just lawyer talk! You can't
take it back, you said this. Perhaps it was because you hadn't sailed the boat
yet. Now that you have, you're admitting that these are serious warnings.
Well, I guess that's about as close a lawyer can get to admitting they were full
of **** to begin with.

Why do you keep claiming she was putting on makeup? The facts were presented:
she was trying to take the cover off to add milk and sugar.

You keep misrepresenting the facts, long after you were corrected. Why is that
Jim? Does truth have little meaning for you?




"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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.

Well, at least you can now buy luckwarm coffee from MacDonalds. You can
hold it between your legs and at the same time fix your hair, do your
nails, or whatever makes you happy. Right Johathan?

Jim

And *my* point was simply to question whether one could conclude from a
*lack* of capsize reports the number of actual capsizes. (Though a large
number of reported capsizes would suggest a problem, it would not
necessarily follow that a lack of such reports suggests an infrequent number
of capsizes.)

--AG

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Alan Gomes wrote:

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

Unless someone has the transcript of the trial, we don't have all the
facts. My point was that I don't see lots of reports about macs
capsizing,or lots of reports of drownings as a result of a supposed
faulty Mac design. My note was intended as a response to those on this
newsgroup who seem to think that posting one or two anectdotes about
problems with the Macs (or any other boat, for that matter) is "proof"
of a faulty design, etc. It isn't of course, and in the case of the
Macs, we have a much larger group of owners that must be taken into
account.

Jim

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

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

You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the

warnings

were something that could be ignored.

When did I say that the warnings could be ignored? The fact that, in my
opinion, the warnings evidence a concern on the part of their lawyers
doesn't at all suggest that one should ignore them.


Now you're admitted they are deadly
serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of

****

Nope. It isn't backpedalling at all. It's telling the truth, in response
to your "gotcha notes." The problem, Jeff, is that you thought that
after all the notes you had written and all the traps you had set, you
thought you had a real "gotcha". But as usual, your hopes have been
dashed, and all you did was reveal once more what your true motives
are. - (To get Cate, no matter what it takes, how many distortions you
have to use.) Fundamentally, Jeff, the problem is that you are becoming
increasingly frustrated that you can't even put down a new Mac owner. -
It's supposed to be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, but you can't
seem to get the hang of it, right Jeff?

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

Nope.

you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another
sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means.


Nope. I don't wear a seatbelt when working out. - Do you?

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.

What would be a good start? That I follow the first sentence or the
second sentence?

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

Where did I KEEP QUOTING THE SPEED NUMBERS? And when did I quote them in
error, ACCORDING TO ACTUAL ON-THE-WATER TESTS you have conducted? In
other words, don't attack the speed numbers I have provided unless you
have some documented test results to back you up.

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.

Maybe. Maybe not.


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?


The point was that my note was a response to your note questioning my
conclusion that the notice was written with input from MacGregor's'
attorneys.
...


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



Actually, Jeff, it was a great vindication of the validity of the
MacGregor design. Even thought the skipper, and probably many of the
guests, were drunk, and even though the skipper ignored all safety
warnings most skippers know, and even though he ignored all the warnings
posted by MacGregor, and even thought the boat was grossly overloaded,
and even though the skipper had pushed the throttle forward and was
trying to maneuver the boat around a turn with eight adult passengers on
the dec., nevertheless, the boat stayed afloat, and the eight passengers
above-deck survived. - The boat didn't capsize and sink to the bottom as
would be the case with many displacement boats, drowning all the
passengers. - That's good, isn't it Jeff?
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.

The news report said they were on the deck. Do you think their lawyer
might have obfuscated the facts along about there?

Yes it would be a bit of a crowd,

"bit of a crowd" - You obviously haven't done much sailing on the Mac
26, have you Jeff? (

but its not clear it would appear
grossly overloaded.

You are, of course, ignoring the fact that the Mac instructions are to
avoid such a load, and in particular, not to permit any passengers on
board without the water ballast.)




I've sailed many times with 6 in the cockpit of a 19
footer and never felt overcrowded or at risk.


Good for you Jeff. I would suspect that you weren't drunk at the time.


(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.

If it is operated in accordance with the owners manual, it is stable,
and it can be sailed in blue water.


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.

Nope. The water ballast boats include both the 26X, the 26M, and the
previous model, known as the 26C. The total of those boats alone is far
greater than 5,000.

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.

And do you by any chance have some evidence (NOT ANECDOTES) supporting
that particular assertion, Jeff?

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."


Well, Jeff, you are right that I will keep the tanks full under most
conditions. As to whether I will only see 12 mph under power and 6 under
sail, maybe I will, but maybe I will see higher figures. I'll report
back later in the 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.


Any normal 26 foot sailboat would not have had a problem.

And what, exactly, is the evidence supporting your assertion, Jeff? Were
you there at the scene, by any chance? Did you attend the trial? Have
you read the transcript of the trial discussing the sequence of events
that led up to the accident?

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.


Again, despite the drunken skipper and the apparently drunk passengers
and the grossly negligent handling of the boat, the Mac design proved
its superiority in that the boat stayed afloat, instead of sinking as
would be the case with almost "any other sailboat" of equivalent size.
Instead of sinking and drowning all the passengers, at least 8 of them
survived. - A great verification of the Mac design, Jeff.



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."


And do you have any evidence to back up that very strange assertion,
Jeff? For example, can you give me quotes from Hunter, or Catalina, or
O'Day, to the effect that it would be safe to carry 10 passengers and a
drunken skipper on one of their 26-foot boats?

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.


Where's your evidence for that sarcastic assertion, Jeff?


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?


Yep. I'm claiming that a 26-foot keel boat with a crew of 10 party
guests and a severely drunk skipper who was gunning the boat while
making turns to get back to shore could, indeed, have rolled over.
Again, if you are saying that the Macs are inherently unsafe, where's
your evidence Jeff? - He who asserts must prove. And all you have done
is to spout a number of your predjudices as if they were fact. Shame on
you, Jeff. You don't have any understanding of the principles of logic
or the basic principles of intellectual honesty.

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.


In any event, improvements are made with each successive model, and the
26M incorporates wisdom achieved over the years from many prior designs.


Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

It's still a piece of crap boat.

Wrong again, Jonathan. It's a great cruising sailboat that is fast
enough to be fun, exiting, and challenging.

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Yes, you're an idiot.


In other words, you think it was perfectly reasonable for her to hold
her cup of coffee between her legs while she applied her makeup?

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

Wow, that much math and physics... I mean wow! You also
claimed to be a sailor. So far, all we've seen are a few fuzzy
pictures of a piece of crap Mac.

Actually, the pictures were rather sharp and clear.

What do you want me to do, Johnathan? Do I have to enter my boat in the
Galveston-Veracruz race to satisfy you? Post results from Sail magazine?
I NEVER said that the boat was a racer or that it was suitable for
blue water crossings. - So what, exactly, do you want me to do?

Jim