"Donal" wrote in message
...

"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.

OK, we'll see.

BTW Do I get a prize for being the victim of the worst ad hominem of the
month?

Or maybe you'll get it for being the biggest jackass. Let's see how you do:



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.

No, this was a quite serious exercise. I was showing that in about 3 seconds
you can find a reasonable upper limit for the volume of a centerboard trunk
that's about a tenth the size that Jim quoted. That's the way someone trained
in physics and math would do it; that's what I would have expected Jim to do,
especially after the obvious blunder had been pointed out to him.

BTW, on July 19th, two weeks ago, I said that 200 gallons is over 26 cubic feet.
I shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 26 cubic feet on a 26
foot boot that only draws one foot, implies a trunk running the entire length a
foot wide. Does that make sense to you? Jim read that post, because he
responded to it, but he chose to keep repeating the absurd claim.





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

What spec is it that you're talking about? Is it where they say "The
conventional centerboard trunk carried about 100 lbs of water; the new trunk
carries virtually none." So how much is 100 pounds of water? At 8 pounds to
the US Gallon, that's just about 12.5 gallons, which is about 1.67 cubic feet.
So Jim was off by a factor of 16, I said "at least a factor of 10, maybe 20 or
more". I'd say I was bang on, given that I was using a guess as to the width of
the trunk.





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.

I was bang on with my educated guess, you're almost as ludicrous as Jim! 110
Gallons is just a bit larger than 12.5 gallons, don't you think, Donal?


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.

What are you talking about Donal? This is water in the centerboard trunk we're
talking about, not the water ballast! Two completely different things. No
wonder you're so confused here. It's beginning to look like you will get that
Jackass of the Year Award.

OK, its not as bad as confusing the Constitution for the Constellation! Perhaps
I should have strung you along a bit more.





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.

You can "figure" however you want, but we've just seen that my "accusation" was
actually quite correct. There was no prejudice at all on my part. Actually,
the simple calculation I did could have been done by almost anyone here, except,
apparently, you and Jim.

On the other hand, you've shown that you're so blinded by prejudice against me
that you forgot the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast
tank.


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.

I've said a number of times that this may be the proper boat for Jim. My only
objection has been his misrepresentations of the facts. This has simply been
another case of that.

And once again, Donal, you were completely wrong, it was you who was incapable
of checking the facts, not I. I think an apology is in order here ...



Regards

Donal
--

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

Why would you say that? I'm the one who has been maligned here.

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"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 what we're talking about.




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.

Jim told us that the warnings needn't be taken literally.




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


This boat has qualities outside of the experience of most boaters, which was
part of the problem. You still haven't told us about another 26 foot cruising
sailboat that will roll over under power because there were 8 adults aboard. I
didn't even say that was inherently bad, only that it was unique.


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

True, but it wasn't the owner. And remember, this boat is marketed to novices.



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.

I was only making the point that the warnings should not be ignored. The
problem I have is that on the one hand they say its dangerous to run without
ballast in many situations, but on the other hand the high speed, which can only
be achieved without ballast, figures prominently in the literature and sales
pitches. This is what the discussion has really been about.



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?

But that's not what I've been talking about at all, Donal. You've just been
rather slow to figure this out, haven't you?

Jeff Morris wrote:


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.

Jeff, you should understand that my concern is that the "Mac
discussions" held on this ng in the past have not really been fair,
balanced, considerations of the Macs. in which the issues were
considered in a balanced, rational matter. Instead, what has typically
happened is that some hapless Mac owner or inquirer has been ambushed by
10 or 15 very biased "experts", most of whom have never even sailed one
of the Macs, much less the current 26M model Upon getting attacked by
the sarcastic anti-Mac "experts," most of these poor souls become
intimidated and quickly move on, never stopping to ask what, exactly, is
the source of information relied on by all the "experts" who have just
jumped down their throat. Jeff, I have nothing against you personally.
You just happen to be the latest in a series of "experts" who have tried
to put me down and ridicule many, many aspects of the Macs. What's
obviously troubling you is that you haven't succeeded in putting me in
my place. - I keep popping back up. As I have previously explained, I
have professional responsibilities that keep me from following this ng
on a daily basis, like you and others. Still, I'm still here. I think
that what's bothering you is that most on this ng think that putting
down a Mac enthusiast is supposed to be a simple, easy task, sort of
like shooting fish in a barrel. Yet it just doesn't seem to be working
in this case, right Jeff? And if you're honest, you would stop trying
to maintain that my remarks are completely vacuous and without merit. -
Instead, Jeff, you would be far more convincing if you were willing to
acknowledge (as have I with respect to some of your comments) that at
least some of my points are well taken.



"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.

Wrong again Jeff. I admit "down below" that I ignore warnings on
Nautilus exercise machines that I might fall out of such machines onto a
carpeted floor one foot down and hurt myself.




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?


The above statements are all true, Jeff.

Had I instead posted notes claiming that, under any conditions, and
regardless of the load or weather, one can always motor back at 15-18
knots, you might have a point.




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.



So you think you have a great "gotcha" here, right Jeff? Sorry, no
cigar this time. - Your "gotcha" doesn't hold water. My discussion of
the notice was to the effect that I thought it revealed an intention to
minimize potential liability relating to the water ballast arrangement.
If one takes the notice literally, it would mean that owners of the
Mac 26M should NEVER motor or sail their boats without the water
ballast, because the first sentence of the warning says that the water
ballast tank should be full when EITHER powering or sailing. THEN, in
the next sentence, the notice refers the reader to instructions for
operating the boat without the water ballast. As I read the notice, the
most reasonable interpretation they want to provide a clear warning
about the potential danger of operating the boat without the water
ballast. But they then indicate that, particularly when motoring, many
owners will operate the boat without the ballast, when under moderate
conditions. Reading comments on the Mac discussion groups also, it seems
that many if not most of the Mac owners have operated their boats
without the water ballast.

The fact that the notice appears to indicate that MacGregor is
concerned about possible liability, and the fact that I suspect that it
entails some legal implications, DOES NOT MEAN that the underlying
message should not be taken seriously. As I have said several times, I
take their warnings quite seriously, even though, at the same time, I
also recognize that they entail what I suspect are some legal
considerations. I also think that they evidence a genuine concern for
the safety of Mac owners generally. Jeff, it's not a simple "either"
question, as you seem to suggest, but rather a "both-and" issue.

You should also remember that in the new Mac 26M an additional 300 lbs
of permanent ballast has been added, along with additional floatation in
the mast, so that even if you motor without a full ballast tank, the
boat still has a significant amount of (permanent) ballast. However,
motoring or sailing with the tank only partially filled, rather than
completely full or empty, is not recommended.

Once again, Jeff, the fact that the warnings entail legal overtones and
the fact that they are somewhat contradictory doesn't at all mean that
the underlying concerns evidenced by the notice shouldn't be taken
seriously. In other words, sometimes a little common sense is in order.

(But of course, your interest in the matter isn't in arriving at a
reasonable interpretation of the notice, is it Jeff? No, your interest
in the matter is that you thought you had great "gotcha" trap going. -
Right Jeff? Once again, you need to go back to school and take that
"Logic 101" course, because you sure aren't evidencing any. On the
other hand, maybe you know that you're stretching the facts, and don't'
want to admit it. Maybe the problem is that you simply have a problem
with basic intellectual honesty.






...



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?

Jeff, my wife and I sailed on a new 25-foot Catalina (shoal draft, wing
keel) a few months ago. Judging by the very alarming heel experienced
when only ONE adult stepped onto the boat or moved around on it, it
would have been easy for the Cat to roll over with a load of eight
adults on top of the deck, particularly if the skipper was drunk,
gunning the motor in a turn, with the passengers also drinking. If they
were drinking and tried to hold onto the mast to keep from falling out
in a turn it would have been a slam "dunk" that the boat would roll
over.


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.


Nope, the vindication derives from the fact that eight passengers plus
the drunk skipper survived, despite the boat being operated and used in
a grossly negligent manner.



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.
...

Jeff, how often do you hear of MacGregors capsizing because they turned
too quickly under power? Maybe 300 a year? Or is it more like 200 a
year? Or perhaps 100 a year? No? How about 50 a year? - Surely, if the
Macs are as unstable and defective as you suggest, you could EASILY
easily find 50 reports of the boats capsizing each year because they
were turned too quickly, Jeff.



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?

Who was driving? A very drunk skipper.



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?

There is actually relatively little room on the foredeck or on top of
the cabin. Four would be a crowd.

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?

As discussed above, what I said was that I don't wear a seat belt when
working out on the Nautilus machines, Jeff. Do you think I ought to?
That's what the instructions say. I do, however, wear a seat belt when
driving my car. (For some reason, I'm really not too concerned about
falling out of the Nautilus machines to the carpeted floor a foot below
the seat.)


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.


Nope. I'm just saying that some warnings (like the warning that I might
fall out of an exercise machine and hurt myself on a cushioned, carpeted
floor) should be taken with a grain of salt.

...

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.

Nope. The boat will motor at 18 mph under some conditions. I never said
that it would motor at 18 mph under ANY conditions or circumstances, or
even most of them, which is how you want to interpret my words.




There are major flaws in your logic here, Jim: First, a large number of

30,000

actually have a significant amount of hard ballast.

You have finally made an at least partially relevant point, Jeff. The
early Macs did indeed have a weighted keel. But they have been followed
by long production runs of several models of water ballast boats.


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 far
greater than 5,000.


Back this up with numbers. And who care?

According to the Mac discussion groups, around 6,000 of just the 26X's
were made. Similarly, a large number of 26Cs were made. Previously,
MacGregor sold thousands of mostly smaller boats of various types. The
bottom line, Jeff, is that although you go on and on about the serious
defects of the Macs, you still can't come up with any evidence to back
up your incredible claims that there are serious safety defects in any
of the boats. You are the one asserting that the Macs are defective and
unsafe. - YOU should provide the evidence to support your malicious
assertions.

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.

That's not what I see on the Mac discussion groups, Jeff.



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.

I don't doubt that you can scan ANY board and find comments to support
almost any conclusion that you want to reach. That doesn't prove
anything, of course.

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!

Jeff, the truth is that delivery of the Garmin GPS unit was delayed for
several months because it is a new model that wasn't available when I
placed the order. Since then the installer got a new job and wasn't
available to complete the installation, resulting in a further delay.
More recently, I have had a series of deadlines at work relating to
several cases for which I am responsible. - Currently, I really don't
know whether the installer has finally got the system all working. - So
tell me, Jeff, do you think I should simply ignore all those deadlines
and assignments so that I can check out all the loose ends on the boat,
and sail it under various conditions so that I can report back to you
what figures I am seeing on the GPS? Is providing prompt responses to
you (who are never, ever satisfied with anything I say on any subject)
more important than taking care of my clients, Jeff? I don't think so.

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

Once again, Jeff, you got it bass-ass backwards. The vindication was
derived from the fact that eight passengers and a drunk skipper survived
despite their gross negligence.


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.

That's really considerate of you, Jeff. But as I have clearly
demonstrated, in this and in previous notes, the problem with your
interpretation of my comments is that you obviously interpret them in an
extremely biased manner, carefully looking for the nits rather than
than giving them a balanced, reasonable interpretation. You also love to
"cherry-pick" among the hundreds of notes I have posted, sniffing out
some that can be quoted out of context with the overall discussion
rather than considering them in context.

So you haven't been "bashing" the Mac 26M Jeff(even when you state or
infer that it is marketed under false or misleading claims, and that is
a seriously compromised, unsafe design). Well, in that vein, I think you
should also acknowledge that I haven't been "puffing" the Mac 26M by
claiming that it is "better than" other heavy displacement boats such as
the Valiant 40 or various other boats. For example, I never stated that
the Mac would out-sail the Valiant, with the Valiant's substantially
longer waterline and heavy keel (except possibly under special
conditions in which the Mac may be sailed on a plane), or that the Mac
would point higher, or provide a more comfortable ride in heavy weather,
etc. I also never stated that the Mac would be a suitable boat for
extended blue-water crossings, as would the Valiant and other similar
boats. I also never stated that it had enough storage room for an
extended cruise, etc. Thus, with respect to all those criteria, many
sailboats are "better" than the Mac. So, Jeff, how about recognizing for
once that I also have tried to provide a balanced evaluation of the
Macs, recognizing that the Macs aren't a great sailboat in all respects.

Jim

They're not being biased... they're being honest. The Mac is an
inferior boat.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:


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.

Jeff, you should understand that my concern is that the "Mac
discussions" held on this ng in the past have not really been fair,
balanced, considerations of the Macs. in which the issues were
considered in a balanced, rational matter. Instead, what has typically
happened is that some hapless Mac owner or inquirer has been ambushed by
10 or 15 very biased "experts", most of whom have never even sailed one

long bs deleted

Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the heart of
the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor!


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:


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.

Jeff, you should understand that my concern is that the "Mac
discussions" held on this ng in the past have not really been fair,
balanced, considerations of the Macs. in which the issues were
considered in a balanced, rational matter. Instead, what has typically
happened is that some hapless Mac owner or inquirer has been ambushed by
10 or 15 very biased "experts", most of whom have never even sailed one
of the Macs, much less the current 26M model Upon getting attacked by
the sarcastic anti-Mac "experts," most of these poor souls become
intimidated and quickly move on, never stopping to ask what, exactly, is
the source of information relied on by all the "experts" who have just
jumped down their throat.

You'll be hard pressed to find (much) of the bashing from me. I've even agreed
on numerous occasions that the Mac is a reasonable choice for some, and that
over the years I've appreciated Roger's innovative approach.

Jeff, I have nothing against you personally.
You just happen to be the latest in a series of "experts" who have tried
to put me down and ridicule many, many aspects of the Macs.

I haven't ridiculed the boats so much as the marketing literature and sales
approach. Frankly, a 26 foot boat that can go 12 mph is impressive; why pile on
bull**** be insisting it can do 18 knots?



What's
obviously troubling you is that you haven't succeeded in putting me in
my place. - I keep popping back up.

Actually, you've dug your hole deeper, that's why you're popping up less
frequently!

Frankly I enjoy your posts, they're much better than the political drivel that's
taken over this board.

As I have previously explained, I
have professional responsibilities that keep me from following this ng
on a daily basis, like you and others. Still, I'm still here. I think
that what's bothering you is that most on this ng think that putting
down a Mac enthusiast is supposed to be a simple, easy task, sort of
like shooting fish in a barrel.

You really think that, don't you? Actually, I think most readers ignore these
threads, just like I ignore most of the political nonsense.

Yet it just doesn't seem to be working
in this case, right Jeff? And if you're honest, you would stop trying
to maintain that my remarks are completely vacuous and without merit. -
Instead, Jeff, you would be far more convincing if you were willing to
acknowledge (as have I with respect to some of your comments) that at
least some of my points are well taken.

Actually, one problem I have is that many of your "points" are just plain
boring. No one in the history of this board has bothered trying to claim that
they have a traveler, or adjustable jib tracks. No real sailor talks about
marketing hype and feature lists at all; the only thing that really matters is
what you've actually done with the boat. Since you haven't done anything yet,
all I can do is point out that your achievements aren't likely to live up to
your claims.

And your "double hull" thing was just plain silly.


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.

Wrong again Jeff. I admit "down below" that I ignore warnings on
Nautilus exercise machines that I might fall out of such machines onto a
carpeted floor one foot down and hurt myself.

When I listed many of the warnings that come with the Mac you claimed they are
not to be taken literally; they are like the seatbelt warnings on a Nautilus.
And you've said you regularly ignore those warnings. How else can we reasonably
interpret your intent here, other than meaning its OK to ignore the warnings
about the Mac?

....


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?


The above statements are all true, Jeff.

They may be "true" but these speeds can only be achieved running without
ballast, which is unsafe, and leaving behind key gear, such as the mast. Almost
every boat made can, under certain situations, achieve speeds much higher than
is normal, but the speed boaters normally quote is the speed that they can
achieve with the gear the normally carry, etc. I've heard factory people claim
they got my boat up to 17 knots, but when people ask me how fast it is, I tell
them my experience. Even though I've seen 13.5 knots, I tell them its usually
between 7 and 9, sometimes over 10 if conditions are perfect.

You, on the other hand, have taken the exaggerated claims and insisted that they
will apply in your daily use. But right from the start, we have to assume that
you will actually carry the mast on board, that you'll have a few passengers,
plus the appropriate gear. You'll probably fill your fuel and water tanks. And
while you may have flat water sometimes, if you're heading out the Houston Ship
Channel, you have to assume the chop will preclude running without ballast. And
powering offshore at 18 knots, especially in deteriorating weather, is probably
completely impossible.




Had I instead posted notes claiming that, under any conditions, and
regardless of the load or weather, one can always motor back at 15-18
knots, you might have a point.

By repeatedly insisting that your claims are "true" you have been implying that
they apply to your normal use. You keep approaching this as a lawyer, not a
sailor, Jim. My entire point has been that the various claims you've made will
not be achievable in normal use. Even though you admitted at times that I'm
correct, you keep claiming I'm bashing the Mac.

What's wrong with admitting that in practice, your speed will be 10-12 mph, its
still twice as fast as most 26 footers?

....



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.



So you think you have a great "gotcha" here, right Jeff? Sorry, no
cigar this time. - Your "gotcha" doesn't hold water. My discussion of
the notice was to the effect that I thought it revealed an intention to
minimize potential liability relating to the water ballast arrangement.
If one takes the notice literally, it would mean that owners of the
Mac 26M should NEVER motor or sail their boats without the water
ballast, because the first sentence of the warning says that the water
ballast tank should be full when EITHER powering or sailing. THEN, in
the next sentence, the notice refers the reader to instructions for
operating the boat without the water ballast. As I read the notice, the
most reasonable interpretation they want to provide a clear warning
about the potential danger of operating the boat without the water
ballast. But they then indicate that, particularly when motoring, many
owners will operate the boat without the ballast, when under moderate
conditions. Reading comments on the Mac discussion groups also, it seems
that many if not most of the Mac owners have operated their boats
without the water ballast.

You're going in circles here. You're saying that the owners can pick and
choose which warnings can be ignored, and which must be taken seriously. Yet
when two children die you say it was because negligence because the warnings
were ignored.

So tell us Jim, how fast have you gone without ballast?


The fact that the notice appears to indicate that MacGregor is
concerned about possible liability, and the fact that I suspect that it
entails some legal implications, DOES NOT MEAN that the underlying
message should not be taken seriously. As I have said several times, I
take their warnings quite seriously, even though, at the same time, I
also recognize that they entail what I suspect are some legal
considerations. I also think that they evidence a genuine concern for
the safety of Mac owners generally. Jeff, it's not a simple "either"
question, as you seem to suggest, but rather a "both-and" issue.


I don't doubt that some experienced skippers, in fairly protected situations,
push the limits by ignoring the warnings. This is true for all sorts of
products, and generally its a good thing. However, I don't see how this applies
to the majority of buyers, since the boat is marketed as a family cruiser. Most
people, in most situations, should heed the warnings and expect performance
consistent with following the warnings.




You should also remember that in the new Mac 26M an additional 300 lbs
of permanent ballast has been added, along with additional floatation in
the mast, so that even if you motor without a full ballast tank, the
boat still has a significant amount of (permanent) ballast. However,
motoring or sailing with the tank only partially filled, rather than
completely full or empty, is not recommended.

Once again, Jeff, the fact that the warnings entail legal overtones and
the fact that they are somewhat contradictory doesn't at all mean that
the underlying concerns evidenced by the notice shouldn't be taken
seriously. In other words, sometimes a little common sense is in order.

(But of course, your interest in the matter isn't in arriving at a
reasonable interpretation of the notice, is it Jeff?

On the contrary, you're the one who made claims that ignore both the warnings
and common sense. For instance, you claimed that you could get offshore, with
the boat loaded with guests and supplies, and get back ahead of bad weather, all
at 18 knots (or sometimes 18 mph).

The bottom line is that the high speeds can only be achieved with no ballast and
completely unloaded; this is not consistent with taking your grandchildren out
the Houston Ship Channel to sail "offshore."


No, your interest
in the matter is that you thought you had great "gotcha" trap going. -
Right Jeff? Once again, you need to go back to school and take that
"Logic 101" course, because you sure aren't evidencing any. On the
other hand, maybe you know that you're stretching the facts, and don't'
want to admit it. Maybe the problem is that you simply have a problem
with basic intellectual honesty.

Right Jim, you keep making this claim. But you haven't explained the logic
behind insisting that speeds achieved without the mast apply to your experience.
Come on Jim, your whole point is been that claims that make no practical sense
are still somehow "correct," but what's the point? Is that what you mean by
intellectual honesty?



Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are
8 adults on deck?

Jeff, my wife and I sailed on a new 25-foot Catalina (shoal draft, wing
keel) a few months ago. Judging by the very alarming heel experienced
when only ONE adult stepped onto the boat or moved around on it, it
would have been easy for the Cat to roll over with a load of eight
adults on top of the deck, particularly if the skipper was drunk,
gunning the motor in a turn, with the passengers also drinking. If they
were drinking and tried to hold onto the mast to keep from falling out
in a turn it would have been a slam "dunk" that the boat would roll
over.

Perhaps, but its also very likely that the boat would have popped back up after
dumping the passengers that were on deck. The Mac 26X turned turtle and stayed
there while the children trapped below drowned. If you think a small boat with
a 1000 pound keel will roll over the same way a Mac 26x with an empty tank will,
you know very little about boats.

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.


Nope, the vindication derives from the fact that eight passengers plus
the drunk skipper survived, despite the boat being operated and used in
a grossly negligent manner.

There were a number of other boat nearby, they would have survived in any case.
Besides, virtually all water ballast boats, and even many smaller keel boats,
have positive flotation. Had MacGregor not included this feature, it would have
been gross negligence on their part.





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.
...

Jeff, how often do you hear of MacGregors capsizing because they turned
too quickly under power? Maybe 300 a year? Or is it more like 200 a
year? Or perhaps 100 a year? No? How about 50 a year? - Surely, if the
Macs are as unstable and defective as you suggest, you could EASILY
easily find 50 reports of the boats capsizing each year because they
were turned too quickly, Jeff.

All you're saying is that virtually all Mac owners follow the warnings. All
I've been saying is that the warnings are deadly serious. Frankly you keep
missing the fundamental point here. You're the one who kept claiming the
warnings need not be taken literally, now you're saying that sometimes they must
be. Frankly, the real problem here was not the overloading or the drunk
skipper - these are things we see every weekend. The problem was have three
children down below. I'm sure the parents assumed they were relatively safe
because normally, 26 foot sailboats don't roll over.


....


But you already told us you don't wear that seatbelt, didn't you?

As discussed above, what I said was that I don't wear a seat belt when
working out on the Nautilus machines, Jeff. Do you think I ought to?
That's what the instructions say. I do, however, wear a seat belt when
driving my car. (For some reason, I'm really not too concerned about
falling out of the Nautilus machines to the carpeted floor a foot below
the seat.)


So there you go - you're admitting that the warning need not always be followed.
So when do you draw the line? How about when your grandchildren are aboard, or
when you're in a major ship channel, or when you're in the ocean, outside of
protection? In other words, many of the times you claimed you could go at 18
knots?

....

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.

Nope. The boat will motor at 18 mph under some conditions. I never said
that it would motor at 18 mph under ANY conditions or circumstances, or
even most of them, which is how you want to interpret my words.

No Jim, you kept repeating your claims after it was pointed out that its highly
unlikely you would ever achieve these speeds with your intended use. You can't
have it both ways, unless of course, if you're lawyer who doesn't actually care
about reality.



....

According to the Mac discussion groups, around 6,000 of just the 26X's
were made. Similarly, a large number of 26Cs were made. Previously,
MacGregor sold thousands of mostly smaller boats of various types. The
bottom line, Jeff, is that although you go on and on about the serious
defects of the Macs, you still can't come up with any evidence to back
up your incredible claims that there are serious safety defects in any
of the boats.

I've never characterized the stability issue as a "defect." I've only pointed
out that the warnings are deadly serious, not to be ignored, especially when you
have your grandchildren aboard. I have pointed out that this is an unusual
property for a 26 foot sailboat. I can't count the number of times I've told
someone, "Don't worry, it can't really tip over." I'm guessing that's what the
kids who drowned were told.


You are the one asserting that the Macs are defective and
unsafe. - YOU should provide the evidence to support your malicious
assertions.

I think that two dead children are all the proof needed to show that the
warnings should be heeded.




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.

That's not what I see on the Mac discussion groups, Jeff.

I easily found a thread with a title like "how fast do you really go?" One or
two posts claimed high speeds, but the majority of the responses were quite
conservative. I posted a number of them back in April but you chose to ignore
them. For instance, several people said it was hard to stay on plane if there
was a moderate chop.



....


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.

That's really considerate of you, Jeff. But as I have clearly
demonstrated, in this and in previous notes, the problem with your
interpretation of my comments is that you obviously interpret them in an
extremely biased manner, carefully looking for the nits rather than
than giving them a balanced, reasonable interpretation. You also love to
"cherry-pick" among the hundreds of notes I have posted, sniffing out
some that can be quoted out of context with the overall discussion
rather than considering them in context.

I've only insisted that you use common sense when you quote expected
performance. I don't think its biased at all to point out that speeds achieved
without the mast on board probably aren't too significant.



So you haven't been "bashing" the Mac 26M Jeff(even when you state or
infer that it is marketed under false or misleading claims, and that is
a seriously compromised, unsafe design).

I never said it was unsafe; I said that it would be unsafe if you ignored the
warning that you claimed did not have to be taken literally.


Well, in that vein, I think you
should also acknowledge that I haven't been "puffing" the Mac 26M by
claiming that it is "better than" other heavy displacement boats such as
the Valiant 40 or various other boats. For example, I never stated that
the Mac would out-sail the Valiant, with the Valiant's substantially
longer waterline and heavy keel (except possibly under special
conditions in which the Mac may be sailed on a plane), or that the Mac
would point higher, or provide a more comfortable ride in heavy weather,
etc. I also never stated that the Mac would be a suitable boat for
extended blue-water crossings, as would the Valiant and other similar
boats. I also never stated that it had enough storage room for an
extended cruise, etc.

So, do you want credit for not being a total loony tune? OK, you do seem to
have some sanity, unlike a few of the Mac posters.

Frankly, I think you've made great progress just since you've bought to boat.
You've started to back off from your worst claims.



Thus, with respect to all those criteria, many
sailboats are "better" than the Mac. So, Jeff, how about recognizing for
once that I also have tried to provide a balanced evaluation of the
Macs, recognizing that the Macs aren't a great sailboat in all respects.

OK, but I'd rather see some real trip reports from you. You've had it over 3
months and you've only been out 3 times? Good grief, man! I thought the point
of a boat like that is that its easy to go out for a quick trip!

And not a very good lawyer at that...

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the
heart of
the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor!

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ...
And not a very good lawyer at that...

And I guess your a Judge & Jury now huh Jon?

And you dont have any room to cut down anyones boat.

Joe










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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the
heart of
the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor!

At least I'm not the pretend lawyer.

I have lots of room. I actually sail my boat.

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

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And not a very good lawyer at that...

And I guess your a Judge & Jury now huh Jon?

And you dont have any room to cut down anyones boat.

Joe










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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the
heart of
the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor!

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message

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.

OK, we'll see.

BTW Do I get a prize for being the victim of the worst ad hominem of the
month?

Or maybe you'll get it for being the biggest jackass. Let's see how you
do:

Your attempt to outdo yourself has failed! "Biggest Jackass" is not as
good as "cowardly piece of sh*t".




BTW, on July 19th, two weeks ago, I said that 200 gallons is over 26 cubic
feet.
I shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 26 cubic feet on a
26
foot boot that only draws one foot, implies a trunk running the entire
length a
foot wide. Does that make sense to you?

No. The width of the trunk is also relevant. You are suggesting that
only the depth and length are important.




I was bang on with my educated guess, you're almost as ludicrous as Jim!
110
Gallons is just a bit larger than 12.5 gallons, don't you think, Donal?


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.

What are you talking about Donal? This is water in the centerboard trunk
we're
talking about, not the water ballast! Two completely different things.
No
wonder you're so confused here. It's beginning to look like you will get
that
Jackass of the Year Award.

You're not very good at the "ad hominems", are you?


You can "figure" however you want, but we've just seen that my
"accusation" was
actually quite correct. There was no prejudice at all on my part.
Actually,
the simple calculation I did could have been done by almost anyone here,
except,
apparently, you and Jim.

Actually, your simple calculation proved nothing more than the fact that you
have a strong desire to feel superior.




On the other hand, you've shown that you're so blinded by prejudice
against me
that you forgot the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water
ballast
tank.

Good comment!
I've come to the conclusion that you are lacking a sense of humour. Is this
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.

I've said a number of times that this may be the proper boat for Jim. My
only
objection has been his misrepresentations of the facts. This has simply
been
another case of that.

And once again, Donal, you were completely wrong, it was you who was
incapable
of checking the facts, not I. I think an apology is in order here ...

I've already apoligised to you in this thread. How many apologies are
needed to bolster your inadequate ego?

Really Jeff, are you a man, .. or a mouse?




Regards


Donal
--

Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do lookup the
difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank, you're
embarrassing yourself.



"Donal" wrote in message
...

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

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message

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.

OK, we'll see.

BTW Do I get a prize for being the victim of the worst ad hominem of the
month?

Or maybe you'll get it for being the biggest jackass. Let's see how you
do:

Your attempt to outdo yourself has failed! "Biggest Jackass" is not as
good as "cowardly piece of sh*t".




BTW, on July 19th, two weeks ago, I said that 200 gallons is over 26 cubic
feet.
I shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that 26 cubic feet on a
26
foot boot that only draws one foot, implies a trunk running the entire
length a
foot wide. Does that make sense to you?

No. The width of the trunk is also relevant. You are suggesting that
only the depth and length are important.




I was bang on with my educated guess, you're almost as ludicrous as Jim!
110
Gallons is just a bit larger than 12.5 gallons, don't you think, Donal?


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.

What are you talking about Donal? This is water in the centerboard trunk
we're
talking about, not the water ballast! Two completely different things.
No
wonder you're so confused here. It's beginning to look like you will get
that
Jackass of the Year Award.

You're not very good at the "ad hominems", are you?


You can "figure" however you want, but we've just seen that my
"accusation" was
actually quite correct. There was no prejudice at all on my part.
Actually,
the simple calculation I did could have been done by almost anyone here,
except,
apparently, you and Jim.

Actually, your simple calculation proved nothing more than the fact that you
have a strong desire to feel superior.




On the other hand, you've shown that you're so blinded by prejudice
against me
that you forgot the difference between a centerboard trunk and a water
ballast
tank.

Good comment!
I've come to the conclusion that you are lacking a sense of humour. Is this
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.

I've said a number of times that this may be the proper boat for Jim. My
only
objection has been his misrepresentations of the facts. This has simply
been
another case of that.

And once again, Donal, you were completely wrong, it was you who was
incapable
of checking the facts, not I. I think an apology is in order here ...

I've already apoligised to you in this thread. How many apologies are
needed to bolster your inadequate ego?

Really Jeff, are you a man, .. or a mouse?




Regards


Donal
--