Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Sorry Jim, I though a sailor with your experience would know that a cubic

foot

of water is about 8 gallons. It only takes a few seconds to deduce that its
about 25 cubic feet (actually 26.7 cubic feet). You could also visualize a
water tank - the large one under my settee holds 80 gallons. Or you could
visualize 400 half gallon milk containers. Any way you do it, a "200 gallon
open cavity" is totally absurd.

What is your estimate, Jeff?



Its very telling that last week you ignored me when I've pointed this out,


(While I took time off to watch the Democratic Convention.)

and

now you're trying to sidestep it. This is one of your "ridiculous and

false"

claims, and of course you fighting tooth and nail to avoid confronting it.

BTW, the size of the cavity is more likely a few cubic feet - 6 inches wide

by 6

feet long by 1 foot draft would yield 3 cubic feet.

Jeff, I'm a registered patent attorney, I have over 20 hours of college
physics, 18 hours of Math, etc. I assure you that I'm capable of
converting gallons to cubic feet, cubic inches, cubic meters, cubic
centimeters, pounds, or whatever the hell else.


Obviously not, or you would have recognized immediately that "200 gallons" was a
completely bogus number. Do you really expect us to believe you took any
college physics or math when you claimed repeatedly that the centerboard trunk
was a 27 cubic foot cavity?



However, the size in
cubic feet isn't the real issue. (If you thin it is, check it out.) -
The issue from the above discussion related to whether or not the Mac
26M and 26X had the same hull, from the same female mold.


No Jim, that's not the issue. That may be the issue you had with others, but my
point is that you made an absurd claim, and then repeated it several times after
the absurdity was pointed out. You even denied that you ever made absurd
claims.

And during all that discussion about whether the two boats were actually
the same, you never admitted I was right regarding the fact that the
hull of the Mac 26M is different from that of the 26X, did you Jeff?
Because to do so would have cost you some brownie points with your buddies.


The real issue, Jeff, is that there is an extended open trunk cavity in
the Mac 25X that's not present in the Mac 25M. - My comments regarding
the cavity were submitted when I was challenged as to whether the hull
of the Mac 26M was the same as that for the Mac 25X. It's obviously not,
and to this day, you refuse to admit that I was right and others
attacking me were dead wrong regarding that issue.

Frankly, I think it the drag of the open trunk is nowhere near as high as you
claim, especially at the low speeds you sail, but that's a different issue.
Claiming its 27 cubic feet is just plain stupid.


Again, in the context of the discussion in which my note was posted,
time, the issue wasn't the degree of drag, but rather that it had been
claimed that the hull of the 26M was the same as that for the 26X. It
had been stated that they probably came off the same female mold. The
fact that the 26M doesn't have the open trunk and the 25X does is simply
one more example of the differences between the two hulls. - Yet you
still refuse to acknowlege that I was right and the others participating
in the discussion were wrong. - Shame, shame on you, Jeff. You put up a
diversionary smoke screen (telling everyone that I didn't figure the
volume in cubic feet) while ignoring the fact that I was fundamentally
right relative to the underlying context of the discussion.




Actually, of
course, the 26X differs in that it has a five-foot open trunk or cavity
extending along the chine of the hull and inducing substantial drag when
the rudder is down, out of the trunk. The hull of the 26M is obviously
different from that of the 26X, and the fact that it doesn't have the
five foot long open trunk extending along the chine of the hull is one
of the several obvious differences.


Sorry Jim, its not called a chine.


That's what the dictionary definition is, Jeff. But once more, you
ignore the substantive context of the discussion, and ignore the fact
that I was right concerning the fact that the hulls of the 26M and the
26X are different, by jumping down my throat about silly technical
issues such as this. If you were honest, Jeff, you would FIRST
acknowledge that I was basically right, and others were wrong, regarding
the original discussion relative to similarities and differences
between the two boats, and then comment regarding your latest "gotcha"
re such terminology

But, of course, intellectual honesty isn't on your list of top
priorities, is it Jeff?

Jim

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

"katysails" wrote in message
...

He said 20 hours - that means, to me, 20 hours

If you were taking 20 hrs here it would mean you were taking 5 four hour
classes or some combination of them 4 and 3, plus lab time...the average
student carries 16 credit hrs per semester....plus labs and library time...

--



Kate,
Don't you think that someone who had 20 credit hours of physics and 18 of math
would know immediately that 200 gallons is a volume much larger than a
centerboard trunk? And after it was pointed out twice he claimed he didn't
have time to do the calculation!


No, not if he had something elst to do, Jeff.


Or, if he had the sailing experience he claims, he would know that a 100 gallon
water tank is rather large, roughly coffin sized, and is bigger than what is
found on most smaller sailboats - 200 gallons is huge! Either Jim is a
complete fake, or he's just too slow and lazy to figure out anything on his own.



Shove it, Jeff.

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
It's still a piece of crap boat.


That's a bit more harshly worded than necessary, doncha think?

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

If you're satisfied with a boat that is just as functional as a camper
trailer as it is for sailing, absolutely. MacGregor advertises it as
such, and for once they are telling the absolute truth.

DSK

You're outdoing yourself Jim. Everything I've claimed about the Mac has come
directly from the MacGregor sites, the dealer sites, and in a few cases, the
bulletin boards of mac owners. As I've said a number of times, I haven't been
dumping on the mac, its your misrepresentation of their own published data that
I've objected to.



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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.

You admit down below that you regularly ignore such warnings.




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".

I set no traps. You created them yourself. When I pointed out the long list of
warnings you implied they weren't that serious. Now that you have the boat, you
know they are serious.


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?

You've already embarrassed yourself beyond all belief! Do you think you have an
iota of credibility here?




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?

What?? Are you saying you ignore the safety warnings? You're loosing it here,
Jim.




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?

You said a number of times you were getting a boat capable of 18 knots,
sometimes you used 18 mph. Here's a few examples

"Am I going to be stranded off-shore in unexpected weather conditions? -
(Actually, since the boat can motor back at 18 mph, it has a better
chance of getting back to shore faster than a displacement boat."

"I'm getting a boat that's capable of motoring in 1.5 feet of water and
sailing offshore, motoring at 18 knots to a desired destination, "

"Regarding access to good sailing areas, the MacGregor can plane out
to the desired sailing are at around 15-18 knots"

"Like, planing the boat at around 12 knots under sail, or 18
knots under power."


This is your typical bull****, Jim. First you make the comments, then you deny
it. Haven't you figured out yet that its all on record?


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.

What? All I did was repeat what the MacGregor sites have admited. The max
speeds were obtained with no mast, no ballast, minimal gear, flat water, one
small skipper. They explained that adding ballast slows it 3 knots, then you
should subtract 1 knot for each 100 pounds. In addition I provided a number of
quotes from owners saying the max speeds acheive in practice is 10 to 12 mph.

I haven't been bashing the Mac, Jim. I've just been insisting that you listen
to what the factory, the vendors, and the owners say about the boat.





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.

There's a real admission.




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.

The issue was never whether it was written by lawyers, actually I think it was
Roger (or some other real sailor) who wrote them. The issue is whether they a
very serious warnings, or just "lawyer talk" to avoid frivolous lawsuits. First
you claim they don't have to be taken literally, now you realize perhaps they're
deadly serious.


...


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.

Two children drowning is a vindication??? You're one sick puppy, Jim.

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?

How often do you hear of keel boats capsizing because they turned too quickly
under power? On any other boat this would never have happened.
....
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?

If on deck meant out of the cockpit, who was driving?



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.)

But you already told us you don't wear that seatbelt, didn't you? Isn't this
just one of those warnings that shouldn't be taken literally? I really don't
see how you can seriously argue both sides of this in one post. Oh, I forgot,
you're a lawyer. You don't care who is right, as long as you get paid.

....
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 in April you were talking about how you can get back at 18 mph if the
weather turns bad? Now you're admitting you can't do that, because it wouldn't
be in accordance with the manual.




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.

Back this up with numbers. And who care?


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 can scan the mac boards and find these comments may times. Your the one who
has owned one for months, why don't you give us some speed numbers? Claiming
you GPS doesn't give SOG is pretty lame, Jim, even for you!


[snip all the bull**** where Jim asserts that 2 children drowning is a
vindication of the design]


So Jim, you keep claiming that I've been "bashing" the Mac. Why don't you go
back and really read my posts? You'll notice that I started by saying the 26M
was a reasonable choice for some people, and that it had advantages in some
environments. Almost every negative comment I've made has had to do with your
claims of speed, which are clearly contradicted by the companies own claims, or
your inflated comments on the resale value and availability, or the warnings
concerning the stability without ballast, or some of your other odd claims, like
the "double hull." I haven't "bashed" the mac, as a few others have, I've just
insisted that you consider its attributes honestly.

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Jeff Morris wrote:
Sorry Jim, I though a sailor with your experience would know that a cubic

foot

of water is about 8 gallons. It only takes a few seconds to deduce that
its
about 25 cubic feet (actually 26.7 cubic feet). You could also visualize a
water tank - the large one under my settee holds 80 gallons. Or you could
visualize 400 half gallon milk containers. Any way you do it, a "200
gallon
open cavity" is totally absurd.

What is your estimate, Jeff?

Gee that's a tough one Jim. How about 6 inches wide by 6 feet long by one foot
draft? That gives a pretty conservative 3 cubic feet. I suspect it may be half
of that, or less. And the amount of drag created by the trunk is reall not that
large.

Its very telling that last week you ignored me when I've pointed this out,

(While I took time off to watch the Democratic Convention.)

No, I meant a full week ago, or more.

....

However, the size in
cubic feet isn't the real issue. (If you thin it is, check it out.) -
The issue from the above discussion related to whether or not the Mac
26M and 26X had the same hull, from the same female mold.


No Jim, that's not the issue. That may be the issue you had with others,
but my
point is that you made an absurd claim, and then repeated it several times
after
the absurdity was pointed out. You even denied that you ever made absurd
claims.

And during all that discussion about whether the two boats were actually
the same, you never admitted I was right regarding the fact that the
hull of the Mac 26M is different from that of the 26X, did you Jeff?

Now your complaining that I didn't come to your defense on this issue of the
"two molds or one"? Give me a break! I would have assumed there was would be
a new mold even if the hull stayed the same. Hell, they probably have a number
of molds, given that they make 4 a day!

Check the record, Jim, I never really debated whether they were different boats
or different versions of the same basic design. I claimed that the similarities
between them were far greater than the differences. I claimed that most of the
comments made about the 26X applied to the 26M, while you claimed that no
negative comment about the 26X (or the history of the company) could be applied
to the 26M because it was a completely new boat.

Because to do so would have cost you some brownie points with your buddies.

Which buddies are those? I'm an equal opportunity nit picker, Jim. I wouldn't
let anyone here get away with the nonsense you've been spouting.



The real issue, Jeff, is that there is an extended open trunk cavity in
the Mac 25X that's not present in the Mac 25M. - My comments regarding
the cavity were submitted when I was challenged as to whether the hull
of the Mac 26M was the same as that for the Mac 25X. It's obviously not,
and to this day, you refuse to admit that I was right and others
attacking me were dead wrong regarding that issue.

I never debated whether there was on open trunk, though I seriously doubt it has
a major affect on performance. And this by itself doesn't make it a new boat -
as I've said before, my boat is offered with fixed keels or daggerboards. I
merely pointed out that 200 gallons is an absurd claim. And you even challenged
us to point out when you made an absurd claim!




Frankly, I think it the drag of the open trunk is nowhere near as high as
you
claim, especially at the low speeds you sail, but that's a different issue.
Claiming its 27 cubic feet is just plain stupid.


Again, in the context of the discussion in which my note was posted,
time, the issue wasn't the degree of drag, but rather that it had been
claimed that the hull of the 26M was the same as that for the 26X. It
had been stated that they probably came off the same female mold.

Well, as I said I expect it was a new mold. But I've spent a bit of time
watching boats being built, including mine. Lots of molds are modified by
adding a little here, taking off something there. I'm sure the three versions
of my boat are actually popped out of the same molds. The boat has gone though
15 years of changes with the original mold. They even built their prototype
powercat with a modified sailboat mold.

The
fact that the 26M doesn't have the open trunk and the 25X does is simply
one more example of the differences between the two hulls. - Yet you
still refuse to acknowlege that I was right and the others participating
in the discussion were wrong. - Shame, shame on you, Jeff.

I never said you were "wrong," only that the question was not relevent. Shame
on you Jim, for presuming my position here.

You put up a
diversionary smoke screen (telling everyone that I didn't figure the
volume in cubic feet) while ignoring the fact that I was fundamentally
right relative to the underlying context of the discussion.

My issue has been your tactic of misuse of the information, and this is just
another case of it.







Actually, of
course, the 26X differs in that it has a five-foot open trunk or cavity
extending along the chine of the hull and inducing substantial drag when
the rudder is down, out of the trunk. The hull of the 26M is obviously
different from that of the 26X, and the fact that it doesn't have the
five foot long open trunk extending along the chine of the hull is one
of the several obvious differences.


Sorry Jim, its not called a chine.


That's what the dictionary definition is, Jeff.

What dictionary is that? Every dictionary I have says its the intersection
between the side and bottom.



But once more, you
ignore the substantive context of the discussion, and ignore the fact
that I was right concerning the fact that the hulls of the 26M and the
26X are different, by jumping down my throat about silly technical
issues such as this. If you were honest, Jeff, you would FIRST
acknowledge that I was basically right, and others were wrong, regarding
the original discussion relative to similarities and differences
between the two boats, and then comment regarding your latest "gotcha"
re such terminology

Hey Jim, I admitted weeks (months?) ago that it made little difference to me if
you wanted to called them different boats. The real issue is whether they are
close enough that observations about one apply to the other. You been claiming
that nothing negative about the 26X can be applied to the 26M. I've claimed
that the differences are not that great.


But, of course, intellectual honesty isn't on your list of top
priorities, is it Jeff?

Actually, that's exactly what I've been insisting on Jim. You're the one who
prides himself in maintaining the highest level of bull****, aren't you? How
many examples of your blatant bull**** do you want me to list Jim? You're
claims about speed you deny you've made? Your claim that warnings can be
ignored? This "200 gallon" issue was just one small place where I tried to
point out that you made a mistake, but with your nonsense you've just made a
fool of yourself another time.

Jim, but what if the reason you haven't heard about it is
that after people buy the boat, they quickly come to
realize (as most of us here have) that they're junk and
decide not to sail the darn things???

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

Sorry Jim, but I don't "shop" at McDs, and I don't buy Macs
(edible - barely - or those that resemble sailboats).

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

"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

Don't worry folks... Macboy doesn't have much between
his legs to worry about.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

Is that why you don't sail it much???

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

Doug, you're right. I should have said that it's a lousy boat
that no one in his right mind would claim as a great cruising
boat. But, it felt good to say that.

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

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Jonathan Ganz wrote:
It's still a piece of crap boat.


That's a bit more harshly worded than necessary, doncha think?

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

If you're satisfied with a boat that is just as functional as a camper
trailer as it is for sailing, absolutely. MacGregor advertises it as
such, and for once they are telling the absolute truth.

DSK