I never realized that *you* would be capable of being
injured by luke warm coffee.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Marc wrote:

Your'e no effing lawyer. First hit on google
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

the facts were that she wasn't driving and Mc D's ignored 100's of
burning complaints and continued insisting that its franchises hold
their coffee at 185 degrees, a temp sufficient to cause full thickness
burns.




How many complaints did they get in the same period about the coffee
being too cold? 100,000? 200,000? The facts are that most people expect
hot coffee to be hot, and they recognize that they have to use a little
common sense in handling the coffee, and not holding between their legs
while in a car. (Iced coffee is the kind that's cold.)

Jim

Well, go for it! Jim, it's a crap boat.

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

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

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, most of my comments were in response to your own. - Am I supposed
to just let you post unfounded or twisted comments about me or comments
denigrating the Mac 26M with no response? As I stated, I'm
participating in these discussions because, in the past, many of the Mac
supporters have simply left after getting a few sarcastic remarks from
those on this ng. I intend to do my best to see that any further
discussions of the Macs don't end up as a one-sided mob attack, as they
have in the past.

Actually, I think that we have pretty well ruminated over most of the
issues discussed above. What we haven't discussed, and what you
apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.
Despite its limitations, it is responsive and balanced and a lot of fun
to sail. One of the most exciting aspects of sailing the Mac 26M, as
with some of the other boats I have sailed, is the experience, after the
sails have been raised, of turning off the motor and sensing that the
boat has begun to move forward and accelerate under sail. To me, the
whole experience is somewhat mysterious. It's as though the boat has
suddenly come to life, empowered by some silent, invisible, yet
powerful force. Sailors have been experiencing it for thousands of
years, but it's still an exciting, evergreen experience for me.

Jim

"Jim Cate" wrote


Jeff, which part of the warning should I interpret literally? The part
that tells me that the tank should be full when either powering or
sailing, or the part that tells me how to operate the boat without the
water ballast?


The part that tells you,''WARNING; This boat is a piece of crap and should
only be sailed on small, shallow lakes when windspeed is under 8kts''.

What we haven't discussed, and what you apparently don't appreciate, is
that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.
Despite its limitations, it is responsive and balanced and a lot of fun to
sail.

I usually don't take part in the Mac bashing since I really don't care but your
comment needs to be addressed. We passed one today on the way to Baltimore.
Now bear in mind the wind was blowing 12-15 and the Mac driver was on a close
reach the same as us. Easy and fast point of sail. Beautiful day. He wasn't
moving! His sails seemed to be trimmed correctly. He wasn't moving! We
turned around and he dropped his genny and started motoring. I fail to see how
this boat is "responsive and fun to sail" The day was a '10' and he wasn't
moving!
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

Alright...let's try this one more time....

What percentage of capsizes *of any kind of boat* get reported? I don't
know...it's just a question to consider. But if it's a relatively small
percentage--which is certainly possible--then you cannot conclude that the
lack of Mac capsize reports proves anything as to its stability. You are the
one who drew the conclusion that since there are not a significant number of
capsize reports on the Mac then they must not be capsizing significantly.
All I'm doing is questioning the logic of that conclusion on the grounds
that reported capsizes may not approximate actual ones.

--AG


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Alan Gomes wrote:

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

--AG


And *my* response is that you can always postulate about why those
reports aren't turning up (It's POSSIBLE, of course, that there is a
conspiracy among Mac owners and the MacGregor company under which any
owner who capsizes is immediately paid a large sum of hush money to
prevent him or her from reporting it.) As can be easily seen from the
discussions of the Mac 26 on this ng, there is a fairly extensive group
of boat owners on this ng who take pleasure in discussing perceived
deficiencies of the Macs. If they could possibly find information
suggesting that the Mac design was causing excessive numbers of capsizes
or other failures, they would hop on those reports with great pleasure.
Also, if the Macs were inherently unsafe or prone to capsize, don't you
think that there would be some report of such a major problem in at
least one of the news media, sailing journals, internet sites, etc.?

The fact remains that no one on this board has yet provided any evidence
that the Macs suffer a disproportionate number of capsizes or structural
failures, despite my repeated suggestions that if they have such
evidence, they should put it on the table. The reports seen on this
ng are, for the most part, mere anecdotes and opinions from posters who,
for the most part, have never sailed the boats they are talking about.

Jim




"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Alan Gomes wrote:


snip (Jeff, if the


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


I'm curious about something here. The implication of this statement

seems to

be that a capsize typically will result in a fatality and hence would
be
reported. Is that a fair assumption to make? Could it not be that these
boats *do* capsize with some regularity, that no fatality or other
significant harm results, and that the capsize remains unreported? I'm

not

saying that is actually the case. I'm just questioning the force of the
argument from silence that is being used here to prove the contrary

(i.e.,

few *reported* capsizes = few capsizes).

--Alan Gomes

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

Jim

Jim

what you
apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.

Most 4 year olds think it's fun to pick their nose...that doesn't make it a
right or healthy thing to do....

--
katysails
s/v Chanteuse
Kirie Elite 32
http://katysails.tripod.com

"Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax
and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.726 / Virus Database: 481 - Release Date: 7/22/2004

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:03:19 -0500, Jim Cate wrote
this crap:

Actually, I think that we have pretty well ruminated over most of the
issues discussed above. What we haven't discussed, and what you
apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.

I just came from a regatta where the Macs were given a PHRF rating of
320. Which makes it the only thing slower than a Cal 20.

During a race, I passed one like it was standing still. Wait, I
think it WAS standing still.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Actually, I think that we have pretty well ruminated over

one can not "ruminate over", jim. one can "ruminate", but not "ruminate over".

btw, I think you meant "chew", jim, for the word "ruminate" has the nuance of
casualness, without plan or goal.

On Mon, 9 Aug 2004 06:51:36 -0400, "katysails"
wrote this crap:

what you
apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.

So is a Victoria. But I wouldn't climb aboard.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

Don't let all the negative comments get you down. Just enjoy your boat.

BTW, here's just one more thing to chew on:
I was looking over the 2002 accident report
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2002.pdf
trying to figure out if there's any support for the PFD proposals and noticed a
curious thing. There were 524 drownings that year, but only 7 were in auxiliary
sailboats. In 5 cases, the victims were not wearing a PFD, but in 2 cases they
were. And then it struck me: those two cases were the two children trapped when
the Mac rolled over. In other words, a Mac 26X was involved in 100% of the
drownings while wearing a PFD on an aux sailboat. And 28% of all aux sailboat
drownings were on a Mac.

Enjoy.

jeff

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

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, most of my comments were in response to your own. - Am I supposed
to just let you post unfounded or twisted comments about me or comments
denigrating the Mac 26M with no response? As I stated, I'm
participating in these discussions because, in the past, many of the Mac
supporters have simply left after getting a few sarcastic remarks from
those on this ng. I intend to do my best to see that any further
discussions of the Macs don't end up as a one-sided mob attack, as they
have in the past.

Actually, I think that we have pretty well ruminated over most of the
issues discussed above. What we haven't discussed, and what you
apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.
Despite its limitations, it is responsive and balanced and a lot of fun
to sail. One of the most exciting aspects of sailing the Mac 26M, as
with some of the other boats I have sailed, is the experience, after the
sails have been raised, of turning off the motor and sensing that the
boat has begun to move forward and accelerate under sail. To me, the
whole experience is somewhat mysterious. It's as though the boat has
suddenly come to life, empowered by some silent, invisible, yet
powerful force. Sailors have been experiencing it for thousands of
years, but it's still an exciting, evergreen experience for me.

Jim