"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Capt. Mooron wrote:

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
| I wasn't claiming the boat was
| completely unsafe; I was pointing out that it isn't correct to tout
the
boat's
| stability when its capable of rolling over at anchor in calm
conditions.

Bwahahahahahahahahaaa..... it's so-o-o-o-o TRUE! :-D

CM


Mooron, the incident Jeff is discussing involved a drunk skipper sailing

No he wasn't sailing, he was at anchor!


a MacGregor water ballas boat WITHOUT the water ballast, and with an
overloaded boat, with a number of guests sitting on the deck (which
MacGregor warns is highly dangerous if the water ballast tank isn't
full.)

That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of rolling
over if
misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat.

Rubbish, Jeff!

Many boats are capable of rolling over if they are misused. In fact, I'm
lucky that I haven't dipped my masthead in the water yet.

There are many "tippy" 26 foot boats. They need to be handled correctly.
If we were to hold the manufacturer responsible for every capsize, then we
would consign most high performance monohulls to history.



Regards

Donal
--

"Donal" wrote

Your legal system seems to absolve individuals of any personal
responsibility for their own actions.

you just realize that now?

Scotty

"Donal" wrote in message
...

That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of rolling
over if
misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat.

Rubbish, Jeff!

Many boats are capable of rolling over if they are misused. In fact, I'm
lucky that I haven't dipped my masthead in the water yet.

There are many "tippy" 26 foot boats. They need to be handled correctly.
If we were to hold the manufacturer responsible for every capsize, then we
would consign most high performance monohulls to history.


Rubbish, Donal??? Name me one 26 foot sailboat, other than a water ballast boat
with an empty tank, that will easily roll over under power, with no wind or
seas. Sure, its fairly easy to broach many boats under sail, etc, but that's
not the situation we're talking about. Under power it usually takes a lack of
ballast, and too much power, and that is an unusual property of the Mac.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Marc" wrote in message
...
And the court found her 20% liable for her actions. Of course ,
dumbass, they found Mc D's liable for 80%.


If she spilt the coffee, while driving a vehicle and trying to hold the cup
between her legs, then she was 100% liable.


zmaybe if that had been the situation. However, she wasn't at the wheel, she
wasn't driving, and contrary to Jim's repeated calims, she wasn't putting on
makeup. They were stopped just past the pickup window, and the woman was simply
trying to take off the cover to add milk and sugar.

Your legal system seems to absolve individuals of any personal
responsibility for their own actions.

It certainly helps your little fantasy if you make up "facts," especially after
the truth of the case had been posted.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Now that is *not* nice.

I disagree.

Jim has been very polite in the face of the most incredible abuse.

Peter Wiley has tried to tell us that his opinion should hold sway over
Jim's because Peter, (and soon), his son have college degrees. This
argument makes no sense at all. In fact, if someone has to invoke their
"degree" as proof of their intelligence, then I would assume that they are a
bit inadequate.


Jeff has poured scorn on the 200 gallon claim, and yet Jeff has not had the
courage to state what he thinks that the real figure is.

What a cowardly piece of **** you are Donal. Almost 48 hours before your post I
responded to Jim:


" 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."

Jim's claim of 200 gallons was off by at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or more.
Anyone who had really taken a considerable amount of physics and math as Jim
claims should be able to see the problem with this number in about three
seconds. Jim is either a liar, or he's too lazy to think for a few seconds.
Only he knows the truth, but he was simply trying to deflect my criticism with
his nasty comment.

Think about it Donal, Jim was claiming the centerboard trunk on a 26 foot
sailboat is 10 times larger than your fuel tank! Does that make sense to you?
What would your guess have been?

Frankly, I didn't think the "200 gallon" number was particularly significant,
except the Jim has had this pattern of quoting bogus numbers and then denying he
ever did it. He has even asked several time that we point out examples of
outrageous claims:

"Really? And could you be just a little more specific? Like, if I posted
all those "ridiculous and false" claims, could you cite a few of them?
(And please quote my own words. - No paraphrases or caricatures.)"

I just figured I was helping Jim as he wished.

"Jeff Morris" wrote


Jim's claim of 200 gallons was off by at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or
more.
Anyone who had really taken a considerable amount of physics and math as
Jim
claims should be able to see the problem with this number in about three
seconds.


jeez, I barley squeeked through the 8th grade and *I* knew it wasn't even
close to 200 gallons.


--
Scott Vernon
Plowville PA __/)__/)__

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"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?

Jeff, I think that you are beginning to go off the deep end.

You need to take a very deep breath ... and then reconsider your question.

Do you really think that Jim said that a break-up rate of less than 10% was
acceptable?

Actually, that's pretty much what Jim is saying. He's claimed several times (in
fact is quoted above) that if the boat were truely dangerous there would be
"hundreds of reports every year about Macs breaking up and owners and passengers
being lost" implying that if the accident rate were any less than that, it would
be acceptable. Jim is claiming precisely what you say he can't possibly be
claiming.





This is just one more example of your flawed logic, and lack of
intellectual
honesty.

"Flawed logic"? "10%"? Please .... Jeff.
In fact, you have demonstrated your own lack of intellectual honesty in your
snobby attempt to put down Jim.

Read Jim's comments again. He is claiming that unless I can show "hundreds of
reports" the boat must be safe.

In fact, all I have claimed is that there are a small number of incidents (one
in particular) that demonstrate that the warnings issued by the builder are
quite serious. You will remember that these are the warnings that Jim claimed
need not be taken literally, because they were written by lawyers. These are
the warnings that must be disregarded to achieve the speeds that Jim has claimed
as a primary reason for buying the boat.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
Now that is *not* nice.

I disagree.

Jim has been very polite in the face of the most incredible abuse.

Peter Wiley has tried to tell us that his opinion should hold sway over
Jim's because Peter, (and soon), his son have college degrees. This
argument makes no sense at all. In fact, if someone has to invoke their
"degree" as proof of their intelligence, then I would assume that they
are a
bit inadequate.


Jeff has poured scorn on the 200 gallon claim, and yet Jeff has not had
the
courage to state what he thinks that the real figure is.

What a cowardly piece of **** you are Donal.

I think that you worry too much about being proved wrong. Read on, and I
bet that it won't feel too awful when you see how misinformed your posts
have been.
BTW Do I get a prize for being the victim of the worst ad hominem of the
month?

Almost 48 hours before your post I
responded to Jim:


" 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."

I owe you an apology, Jeff. I really didn't think that you were making a
serious guess. I thought that you were making a wild uninformed assumption
in an effort to wind Jim up.


Jim's claim of 200 gallons was off by at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or
more.

I don't think so. Perhaps you would care to look at the specifications?
http://www.russellsmarine.com/mac/update.htm


Anyone who had really taken a considerable amount of physics and math as
Jim
claims should be able to see the problem with this number in about three
seconds. Jim is either a liar, or he's too lazy to think for a few
seconds.
Only he knows the truth, but he was simply trying to deflect my criticism
with
his nasty comment.

Think about it Donal, Jim was claiming the centerboard trunk on a 26 foot
sailboat is 10 times larger than your fuel tank! Does that make sense to
you?
What would your guess have been?

Well, I'd guess about 110 gallons, which would mean that you were more than
4 times more inaccurate than Jim.
My guess is based on my interpretation of the boat's specification sheet,
which claims 1300 lbs of ballast. 300lbs are fixed, and 1000 lbs is water.
I assume that the figures refer to salt water, and that sal****er is a bit
heavier than fresh water, so that leads me to conclude that there is about
110 US gallons of water involved.


Frankly, I didn't think the "200 gallon" number was particularly
significant,
except the Jim has had this pattern of quoting bogus numbers and then
denying he
ever did it. He has even asked several time that we point out examples of
outrageous claims:

"Really? And could you be just a little more specific? Like, if I posted
all those "ridiculous and false" claims, could you cite a few of them?
(And please quote my own words. - No paraphrases or caricatures.)"

I just figured I was helping Jim as he wished.

I figure that your accusation that he was out by a factor of "10, maybe 20
or more" was based on pure prejudice.

It is most unedifying to witness a catamaran owner looking down his nose at
a Mac owner.... especially when he is incapable of checking his facts before
spouting off.

Regards

Donal
--

PS I feel a really good ad hominem coming my way - instead of the apology
that I am owed!

"Scott Vernon" wrote in message
...

"Donal" wrote

Your legal system seems to absolve individuals of any personal
responsibility for their own actions.

you just realize that now?

Nah.... We've been importing it for the last 10 years.

We can't do anything without doing a "risk assessment" and a "method
statement".

Our company is currently waiting for the go ahead to start a job. The job
should have started 2 weeks ago. We are being delayed because the client's
Heath & Safety Officer hasn't read our risk assessment yet. He's too busy.
The delay is costing us $1800 a day.
In 13 years we have only had *one* accident that had to be entered into the
(legally required) accident book. That was a paper cut!!!
Now we have to train all new staff how to handle sheets of paper so that
they don't cut themselves when they are reading a letter. We also have to
document the training, and produce a certificate to show that the employee
has *successfully* attended a course in the handling of paper.



Regards


Donal
--

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

That's not the point. The point is that the boats is capable of
rolling
over if
misued. This is an extremely unusual property for a 26 foot sailboat.

Rubbish, Jeff!

Many boats are capable of rolling over if they are misused. In fact,
I'm
lucky that I haven't dipped my masthead in the water yet.

There are many "tippy" 26 foot boats. They need to be handled
correctly.
If we were to hold the manufacturer responsible for every capsize, then
we
would consign most high performance monohulls to history.


Rubbish, Donal??? Name me one 26 foot sailboat, other than a water
ballast boat
with an empty tank, that will easily roll over under power, with no wind
or
seas. Sure, its fairly easy to broach many boats under sail, etc,

That's what I was thinking of.


but that's
not the situation we're talking about. Under power it usually takes a
lack of
ballast, and too much power, and that is an unusual property of the Mac.

Not if you follow the instructions.

You learn about your boat's handling characteristics through experience.

All boats are different. It is up to the owner to know what his boat is
capable of.

If we take your point of view to its logical conclusion, then it would
become illegal to manufacture any of the high performance sailing boats.
Most of them will capsize if they are not handled correctly.

The end result of your approach is that we would only be able to sail long
keeled boats that had positive floatation. Can't you see that the world
would be a miserable place if boats were regulated to such an extent?



Regards

Donal
--