|
Bought a Reinel 26'
Yes, you're an idiot.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Similarly, you are an idiot. In other words, I like getting kicked in the ass and don't have any rational response. Right Jonathan? Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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... -- 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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"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! roughly 8 gallons (64 pounds of water) to a cubic foot implies 25 cubic feet. or almost 4 liters to a gallon implies 800 cubic liters or 0.8 cubic meters either way good to about 10%, or just go to: http://www.onlineconversion.com/ 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. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
And the court found her 20% liable for her actions. Of course ,
dumbass, they found Mc D's liable for 80%. On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 21:10:13 -0500, Jim Cate wrote: 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. When people order a coke, nost of them expect it to be cold. When they order coffee, they normally expect it to be hot. (Hence the term, "hot coffee.") Also, most people have enough common sense to know that they shouldn't try to hold a cup of hot coffee between their legs, particularly when sitting in a moving vehicle. Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Maybe you're an idiot, didn't read the case, and/or you're
not an attorney. You're certainly not a sailor. If your talking to me ......... I just finished reading the link to the case details. What's your problem? Are you the grandson? S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "Trains are a winter sport" |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Not talking to you...
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "SAIL LOCO" wrote in message ... Maybe you're an idiot, didn't read the case, and/or you're not an attorney. You're certainly not a sailor. If your talking to me ......... I just finished reading the link to the case details. What's your problem? Are you the grandson? S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "Trains are a winter sport" |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Not talking to you...
I should have realized that when you said I wasn't a sailor. S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "Trains are a winter sport" |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Yup... talking to/about Jim.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "SAIL LOCO" wrote in message ... Not talking to you... I should have realized that when you said I wasn't a sailor. S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "Trains are a winter sport" |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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? Yeah, but I wasn't responding to whoever it is that is math challenged...I was talking to Peter about college credit hour requirements....whole different mini-discussion within a thread.... -- 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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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. Jim Jonathan Ganz wrote: Clearly, you're not much of a sailor if you think that popularity equals quality. I know one of the major Mac dealers in the western US. Even he admits that they're not much a sailboat. You're the idiot who bought one. Look up your own stats. Seems to me that you're trying to hide your embarrassment by claiming all sorts of things that aren't true. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"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? 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. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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.) The basic fact, once again, are that this stupid bitch put the cup of coffee between her legs while she was preoccupied with something else in the vehicle (whether or not she was driving is really of no consequence to the story.) As I understood it, she was busy applying her makeup while supporting the cup of coffee in her crotch. The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury with inflammatory pictures of her burns, and got a punitive judgment against MacDonalds that was based on their emotional reaction to the pictures, and not on any rational consideration of whether MacDonalds, or the lady, was negligent. - This was confirmed when the award was substantially reduced on appeal. The BASIC FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive measures resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our economy for both small and large business, and in particular, a major reason our medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of lawsuits like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added costs to business, and where they relate to medical issues, a major factor in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance, which are rising to levels beyond what many people can afford. It's also a major factor in the precarious status of Medicare, care for the indigent, etc., Costs to businesses add to unemployment and underemployment in many sectors of our economy. But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can safely hold between our legs while we ride in our car. - Does that give you some nice warm fuzzies Jeff? Jim "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts. Macboy is quite an attorney! Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of that, Jonathan? And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs. Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Jeff, I've been watching the Democratic convention this week so I
haven't had much time to check in to the ng very often. Glancing over your notes, I see that your comments are as vacuous as always, however. Jeff Morris wrote: "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the Macgregor warnings: "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. " Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****? Nope. I take the warnings quite seriously. However, I also recognize that one of the purposes of the warnings is to minimize the possibility of tort actions against Mac. You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the warnings were something that could be ignored. Now you're admitted they are deadly serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of **** 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 you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means. 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? Or the part that refers me to the instructions on how to sail and motor the boat without the water ballast? Actually, while I think the skipper should go to jail for Boating While Intoxicated, the family of the children might have a rather good case. The boat was not going fast, the conditions were calm, and while the boat might have been overloaded according to the warnings, most people probably wouldn't think 8 adults on deck is too much for a 26 foot sailboat. I'll bet hundreds of people saw them that night and probably no one commented that it looks dangerously overloaded. OTOH, I've frequently seen smaller boats that appeared overloaded, but I've almost never seem them spontaneously rollover. While acknowledging that I havent' read the transcript and wasn't there at the trial, that's not the story I see quoted from various news articles. For example: Published April 30, 2004 MIDDLEBURY -- Four law-enforcement officers testified Thursday that the skipper of a boat that capsized on Lake Champlain, killing two Charlotte children, was extraordinarily drunk the night of the accident. The testimony from three police officers and one U.S. Coast Guard official came on the second day of George Dean Martin's trial in Vermont District Court in Middlebury. Martin, 48, of Charlotte has pleaded not guilty to two counts of boating while intoxicated with death resulting in the July 4, 2002, drownings of Trevor Mack, 4, and his sister Melissa Mack, 9. Each count carries up to five years in prison and a $2,000 fine. Addison County prosecutors contend Martin was so drunk that he operated the boat improperly by MAKING A SHARP LEFT TURN AND GUNNINIG THE ENGINE,WHICH CAUSED THE VESSEL TO CAPSIZE. Defense attorneys argue that the boat -- a combination motorboat and sailboat called a MacGregor 26 -- was inherently unsafe and prone to tip with more than four people aboard. Martin and 10 PASSENGERS were on the vessel that night. They set out toward Diamond Island to watch Independence Day fireworks. The boat flipped as Martin began steering the MacGregor back toward shore. Mike Fish, a Colchester police detective who responded to the scene and interviewed Martin on land shortly after the accident, said Martin was "substantially intoxicated." "He was swaying back and forth like a breeze blowing a small sapling," Fish testified. 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 the boat had a double hull and foam flotation. I'm gratified to see that you will at least admit you were wrong on some occasions, Jeff. Yes, the skipper was apparently gunning the motor trying to make a turn or get back to port. Jeff, if you have sailed on a Mac 26, it will be apparent that the deck is very small, certainly far too small for a crowd of eight adults. (And since the skipper was drunk, I assume that some of the passengers would have been drinking also.) It should have been obvious to any responsible skipper that this was an a clearly unsafe condition, particularly since the boat wasn't sitting at anchor but being turned around under power to get back. Although we don't know the exact facts of the accident, ANY small boat can be capsized with that much load under at least SOME conditions, e.g., if most of the weight is on one side during a turn, or if they are holding onto the mast pulling it over, etc. (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.) Face it, Jeff, the facts are that the skipper was drunk, gunning the engine, making a turn with an overloaded boat, and totally disregarding the most basic safety principles. Regarding the boat itself, I note that the flotation system apparently kept the boat afloat even in such severe and overloaded conditions. Had it not been for the particular design of the Mac26X with it's flotation backup and lack of a weighted keel, the boat would have probably sunk, drowning the skipper and the eight adults sitting on the deck. - Think of the headlines, Jeff, "sailboat capsizes and is dragged to the bottom by its heavy keel (negligent design?) drowning all eight passengers." I suppose that in one respect the story is a further affirmation of the potential value of the improvements made in the new 26M, which incorporates an additional 300 pounds of permanent ballast in its hull and additional flotation in the upper mast, making it an even safer boat than the 26X. Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Yes, that's exactly what you're saying. Macs are crapola boats.
They are not seaworthy in all but the most benign conditions. Their rigs are small and flimsy. They are crap boats. You're the one being dishonest or stupid. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "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. Jim Jonathan Ganz wrote: Clearly, you're not much of a sailor if you think that popularity equals quality. I know one of the major Mac dealers in the western US. Even he admits that they're not much a sailboat. You're the idiot who bought one. Look up your own stats. Seems to me that you're trying to hide your embarrassment by claiming all sorts of things that aren't true. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "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.) The basic fact, once again, are that this stupid bitch put the cup of coffee between her legs while she was preoccupied with something else in the vehicle (whether or not she was driving is really of no consequence to the story.) As I understood it, she was busy applying her makeup while supporting the cup of coffee in her crotch. The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury with inflammatory pictures of her burns, and got a punitive judgment against MacDonalds that was based on their emotional reaction to the pictures, and not on any rational consideration of whether MacDonalds, or the lady, was negligent. - This was confirmed when the award was substantially reduced on appeal. The BASIC FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive measures resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our economy for both small and large business, and in particular, a major reason our medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of lawsuits like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added costs to business, and where they relate to medical issues, a major factor in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance, which are rising to levels beyond what many people can afford. It's also a major factor in the precarious status of Medicare, care for the indigent, etc., Costs to businesses add to unemployment and underemployment in many sectors of our economy. But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can safely hold between our legs while we ride in our car. - Does that give you some nice warm fuzzies Jeff? Jim "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: My recollection is that she had to have multiple skin grafts. Macboy is quite an attorney! Maybe she shouldn't carry hot coffee between her legs. Ever think of that, Jonathan? And maybe she should have realized that the coffee was hot when she held it in her hands, prior to putting it betweeen her legs. Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Well, we can see that you're quite a sailor. I'm sure you can find
a couple of other excuses for not sailing. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jeff, I've been watching the Democratic convention this week so I haven't had much time to check in to the ng very often. Glancing over your notes, I see that your comments are as vacuous as always, however. Jeff Morris wrote: "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jeff Morris wrote: Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the Macgregor warnings: "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. " Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****? Nope. I take the warnings quite seriously. However, I also recognize that one of the purposes of the warnings is to minimize the possibility of tort actions against Mac. You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the warnings were something that could be ignored. Now you're admitted they are deadly serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of **** 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 you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means. 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? Or the part that refers me to the instructions on how to sail and motor the boat without the water ballast? Actually, while I think the skipper should go to jail for Boating While Intoxicated, the family of the children might have a rather good case. The boat was not going fast, the conditions were calm, and while the boat might have been overloaded according to the warnings, most people probably wouldn't think 8 adults on deck is too much for a 26 foot sailboat. I'll bet hundreds of people saw them that night and probably no one commented that it looks dangerously overloaded. OTOH, I've frequently seen smaller boats that appeared overloaded, but I've almost never seem them spontaneously rollover. While acknowledging that I havent' read the transcript and wasn't there at the trial, that's not the story I see quoted from various news articles. For example: Published April 30, 2004 MIDDLEBURY -- Four law-enforcement officers testified Thursday that the skipper of a boat that capsized on Lake Champlain, killing two Charlotte children, was extraordinarily drunk the night of the accident. The testimony from three police officers and one U.S. Coast Guard official came on the second day of George Dean Martin's trial in Vermont District Court in Middlebury. Martin, 48, of Charlotte has pleaded not guilty to two counts of boating while intoxicated with death resulting in the July 4, 2002, drownings of Trevor Mack, 4, and his sister Melissa Mack, 9. Each count carries up to five years in prison and a $2,000 fine. Addison County prosecutors contend Martin was so drunk that he operated the boat improperly by MAKING A SHARP LEFT TURN AND GUNNINIG THE ENGINE,WHICH CAUSED THE VESSEL TO CAPSIZE. Defense attorneys argue that the boat -- a combination motorboat and sailboat called a MacGregor 26 -- was inherently unsafe and prone to tip with more than four people aboard. Martin and 10 PASSENGERS were on the vessel that night. They set out toward Diamond Island to watch Independence Day fireworks. The boat flipped as Martin began steering the MacGregor back toward shore. Mike Fish, a Colchester police detective who responded to the scene and interviewed Martin on land shortly after the accident, said Martin was "substantially intoxicated." "He was swaying back and forth like a breeze blowing a small sapling," Fish testified. 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 the boat had a double hull and foam flotation. I'm gratified to see that you will at least admit you were wrong on some occasions, Jeff. Yes, the skipper was apparently gunning the motor trying to make a turn or get back to port. Jeff, if you have sailed on a Mac 26, it will be apparent that the deck is very small, certainly far too small for a crowd of eight adults. (And since the skipper was drunk, I assume that some of the passengers would have been drinking also.) It should have been obvious to any responsible skipper that this was an a clearly unsafe condition, particularly since the boat wasn't sitting at anchor but being turned around under power to get back. Although we don't know the exact facts of the accident, ANY small boat can be capsized with that much load under at least SOME conditions, e.g., if most of the weight is on one side during a turn, or if they are holding onto the mast pulling it over, etc. (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.) Face it, Jeff, the facts are that the skipper was drunk, gunning the engine, making a turn with an overloaded boat, and totally disregarding the most basic safety principles. Regarding the boat itself, I note that the flotation system apparently kept the boat afloat even in such severe and overloaded conditions. Had it not been for the particular design of the Mac26X with it's flotation backup and lack of a weighted keel, the boat would have probably sunk, drowning the skipper and the eight adults sitting on the deck. - Think of the headlines, Jeff, "sailboat capsizes and is dragged to the bottom by its heavy keel (negligent design?) drowning all eight passengers." I suppose that in one respect the story is a further affirmation of the potential value of the improvements made in the new 26M, which incorporates an additional 300 pounds of permanent ballast in its hull and additional flotation in the upper mast, making it an even safer boat than the 26X. Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"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. The basic fact, once again, are that this stupid bitch put the cup of coffee between her legs while she was preoccupied with something else in the vehicle (whether or not she was driving is really of no consequence to the story.) As I understood it, she was busy applying her makeup while supporting the cup of coffee in her crotch. When coffee is served in a flimsy cup to someone seating in a car, one must consider the possibility it could get spilled. The BASIC FACTS are that she got a hot shot lawyer who enraged the jury with inflammatory pictures of her burns, and got a punitive judgment against MacDonalds that was based on their emotional reaction to the pictures, and not on any rational consideration of whether MacDonalds, or the lady, was negligent. - This was confirmed when the award was substantially reduced on appeal. Reduced somewhat, but still a substantial penalty. The BASIC FACTS are that judgments of this kind, and the defensive measures resulting from the threat of them, are a major drag on our economy for both small and large business, and in particular, a major reason our medical costs are the highest in the world. The end result of lawsuits like this is a continued tax on all of us due to the added costs to business, and where they relate to medical issues, a major factor in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance, which are rising to levels beyond what many people can afford. It's also a major factor in the precarious status of Medicare, care for the indigent, etc., Costs to businesses add to unemployment and underemployment in many sectors of our economy. But I suppose that we got one positive result out of the MacDonalds suit. - We can now get lukewarm coffee from MacDonalds that we can safely hold between our legs while we ride in our car. - Does that give you some nice warm fuzzies Jeff? Actually, I never buy coffee from a takeout, because I find that its too hot to drink and by the time it cools a bit to be drinkable, I've probably spilled it! When I first heard about this case, I thought the woman was crazy, but the more I found out about it the clearer it seemed that Micky D's was negligent. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jim Cate" wrote in message ... .... You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the warnings were something that could be ignored. Now you're admitted they are deadly serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of **** 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 you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means. 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. But since you keep quoting the speed numbers assuming there's no risk to running without ballast, you still haven't got the point. 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. 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? .... 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 the boat had a double hull and foam flotation. I'm gratified to see that you will at least admit you were wrong on some occasions, Jeff. Yes, the skipper was apparently gunning the motor trying to make a turn or get back to port. Jeff, if you have sailed on a Mac 26, it will be apparent that the deck is very small, certainly far too small for a crowd of eight adults. They didn't say they were all on the foredeck - 4 to 6 could have been in the cockpit. Yes it would be a bit of a crowd, but its not clear it would appear grossly overloaded. I've sailed many times with 6 in the cockpit of a 19 footer and never felt overcrowded or at risk. (And since the skipper was drunk, I assume that some of the passengers would have been drinking also.) It should have been obvious to any responsible skipper that this was an a clearly unsafe condition, particularly since the boat wasn't sitting at anchor but being turned around under power to get back. Although we don't know the exact facts of the accident, ANY small boat can be capsized with that much load under at least SOME conditions, e.g., if most of the weight is on one side during a turn, or if they are holding onto the mast pulling it over, etc. You're describing the behaviour of a 15 foot centerboard boat, not a 26 foot cruiser. I guess that is the essence of my whole point: the Mac has to be considered as stable as small centerboard boat. But you keep billing it as a blue water cruiser. (Jeff, if the Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of such reports every year.) There are major flaws in your logic here, Jim: First, a large number of 30,000 actually have a significant amount of hard ballast. In fact, some of his boats have a fairly conservative design, considering where he's coming from. In fact, the number of Max 26X's and M's is more like 5000. 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. You keep trying to make this about Macs, but its really about your interpretation of the marketing hype. If you had said, "I probably will keep the tanks full therefore will probably only see 12 mph under power and 6 under sail, but that's good enough for me" I would have said, "fine, you understand the tradeoffs and made your decision." Face it, Jeff, the facts are that the skipper was drunk, gunning the engine, making a turn with an overloaded boat, and totally disregarding the most basic safety principles. Any normal 26 foot sailboat would not have had a problem. I'll admit the skipper was negligent, but if this was virtually any other sailboat, nothing would have happened and two children would still be alive. Regarding the boat itself, I note that the flotation system apparently kept the boat afloat even in such severe and overloaded conditions. For any other 26 foot sailboat, this would not be a "severe and overloaded condition." Had it not been for the particular design of the Mac26X with it's flotation backup and lack of a weighted keel, the boat would have probably sunk, drowning the skipper and the eight adults sitting on the deck. Had it not been for the particular design of the boat, there never would have been a problem and two children would still be alive today. Think of the headlines, Jeff, "sailboat capsizes and is dragged to the bottom by its heavy keel (negligent design?) drowning all eight passengers." Now you're claiming that a keel boat would have rolled over like that??? You really don't know much about boats, do you Jim? I suppose that in one respect the story is a further affirmation of the potential value of the improvements made in the new 26M, which incorporates an additional 300 pounds of permanent ballast in its hull and additional flotation in the upper mast, making it an even safer boat than the 26X. Perhaps it was Roger's conscience speaking. Actually, I think it was driven by the v-bottom and the taller mast. And maybe the lawyers. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
... Jeff, do you actually believe that the warnings regarding the Mac weren't reviewed by legal counsel? If so, I have several bridges you might have an interst in. I never said lawyers weren't invovlved. I only said they were serious warnings. You were claiming they should not be taken literally, implying that you can't trust anything a lawyer says. (Note, This DOES NOT mean that the warnings about sailing without the water ballast shouldn't be taken seriously.) What??? How can you be so disingenuous? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer. Remember, you said: Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc. Jim - you're the one who claimed the warnings were just lawyer talk! You can't take it back, you said this. Perhaps it was because you hadn't sailed the boat yet. Now that you have, you're admitting that these are serious warnings. Well, I guess that's about as close a lawyer can get to admitting they were full of **** to begin with. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Why do you keep claiming she was putting on makeup? The facts were presented:
she was trying to take the cover off to add milk and sugar. You keep misrepresenting the facts, long after you were corrected. Why is that Jim? Does truth have little meaning for you? "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Jonathan Ganz wrote: Wow. What a humanitarian. She was old and feeble, she was severely burned by a company that new full well there was a problem, but you call her a stupid bitch. Of course, this is the same guy who shills for Macs and was stupid enough to actually buy one. I think we got the basic facts about you right. Well, at least you can now buy luckwarm coffee from MacDonalds. You can hold it between your legs and at the same time fix your hair, do your nails, or whatever makes you happy. Right Johathan? Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
And *my* point was simply to question whether one could conclude from a
*lack* of capsize reports the number of actual capsizes. (Though a large number of reported capsizes would suggest a problem, it would not necessarily follow that a lack of such reports suggests an infrequent number of capsizes.) --AG "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Alan Gomes wrote: snip (Jeff, if the Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of such reports every year.) I'm curious about something here. The implication of this statement seems to be that a capsize typically will result in a fatality and hence would be reported. Is that a fair assumption to make? Could it not be that these boats *do* capsize with some regularity, that no fatality or other significant harm results, and that the capsize remains unreported? I'm not saying that is actually the case. I'm just questioning the force of the argument from silence that is being used here to prove the contrary (i.e., few *reported* capsizes = few capsizes). --Alan Gomes Unless someone has the transcript of the trial, we don't have all the facts. My point was that I don't see lots of reports about macs capsizing,or lots of reports of drownings as a result of a supposed faulty Mac design. My note was intended as a response to those on this newsgroup who seem to think that posting one or two anectdotes about problems with the Macs (or any other boat, for that matter) is "proof" of a faulty design, etc. It isn't of course, and in the case of the Macs, we have a much larger group of owners that must be taken into account. Jim Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Jeff Morris wrote: "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... ... You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the warnings were something that could be ignored. When did I say that the warnings could be ignored? The fact that, in my opinion, the warnings evidence a concern on the part of their lawyers doesn't at all suggest that one should ignore them. Now you're admitted they are deadly serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of **** Nope. It isn't backpedalling at all. It's telling the truth, in response to your "gotcha notes." The problem, Jeff, is that you thought that after all the notes you had written and all the traps you had set, you thought you had a real "gotcha". But as usual, your hopes have been dashed, and all you did was reveal once more what your true motives are. - (To get Cate, no matter what it takes, how many distortions you have to use.) Fundamentally, Jeff, the problem is that you are becoming increasingly frustrated that you can't even put down a new Mac owner. - It's supposed to be as easy as shooting fish in a barrel, but you can't seem to get the hang of it, right Jeff? from the beginning! This is a Slam Dunk, you just Screwed the Pooch, your client was sent to the chair! You're going to squirm, claiming you never said to ignore the warnings. SO are Nope. you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means. Nope. I don't wear a seatbelt when working out. - Do you? Really, Jeff? And WHICH PART OF THE WARNING should I pay the closest attention to? The part that tells me never to sail or motor the boat without the water ballast? That would be a good start. What would be a good start? That I follow the first sentence or the second sentence? But since you keep quoting the speed numbers assuming there's no risk to running without ballast, you still haven't got the point. Where did I KEEP QUOTING THE SPEED NUMBERS? And when did I quote them in error, ACCORDING TO ACTUAL ON-THE-WATER TESTS you have conducted? In other words, don't attack the speed numbers I have provided unless you have some documented test results to back you up. I assume that in fact, you will almost always run with ballast, and will come to realize that you cannot really go 18 knots, especially in less then ideal situations. I think you're reallizing that already, given how fast you're backpedaling now. Maybe. Maybe not. Or the part that refers me to the instructions on how to sail and motor the boat without the water ballast? So what's your point? Is it that even though this boat is marketed to novices, even an experienced boater must read the manual carefully because its inherently dangerous? The point was that my note was a response to your note questioning my conclusion that the notice was written with input from MacGregor's' attorneys. ... Yes, I only saw an initial report which made it sound like he was still at anchor. He had actually left the raft up and made the mistake of turning too quickly. I said there were 8 adults on deck and three small children below, that's what the report says. While the children count as "passengers" their total weight was probably about 100 pounds, and being near the waterline shouldn't contribute much to the unbalance. Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are 8 adults on deck? Only one that I know of. And its the one that you keep claiming is very stable. And sadly, 2 children were trapped below, even though there were numerous people there trying to rescue them, even though Actually, Jeff, it was a great vindication of the validity of the MacGregor design. Even thought the skipper, and probably many of the guests, were drunk, and even though the skipper ignored all safety warnings most skippers know, and even though he ignored all the warnings posted by MacGregor, and even thought the boat was grossly overloaded, and even though the skipper had pushed the throttle forward and was trying to maneuver the boat around a turn with eight adult passengers on the dec., nevertheless, the boat stayed afloat, and the eight passengers above-deck survived. - The boat didn't capsize and sink to the bottom as would be the case with many displacement boats, drowning all the passengers. - That's good, isn't it Jeff? the boat had a double hull and foam flotation. I'm gratified to see that you will at least admit you were wrong on some occasions, Jeff. Yes, the skipper was apparently gunning the motor trying to make a turn or get back to port. Jeff, if you have sailed on a Mac 26, it will be apparent that the deck is very small, certainly far too small for a crowd of eight adults. They didn't say they were all on the foredeck - 4 to 6 could have been in the cockpit. The news report said they were on the deck. Do you think their lawyer might have obfuscated the facts along about there? Yes it would be a bit of a crowd, "bit of a crowd" - You obviously haven't done much sailing on the Mac 26, have you Jeff? ( but its not clear it would appear grossly overloaded. You are, of course, ignoring the fact that the Mac instructions are to avoid such a load, and in particular, not to permit any passengers on board without the water ballast.) I've sailed many times with 6 in the cockpit of a 19 footer and never felt overcrowded or at risk. Good for you Jeff. I would suspect that you weren't drunk at the time. (And since the skipper was drunk, I assume that some of the passengers would have been drinking also.) It should have been obvious to any responsible skipper that this was an a clearly unsafe condition, particularly since the boat wasn't sitting at anchor but being turned around under power to get back. Although we don't know the exact facts of the accident, ANY small boat can be capsized with that much load under at least SOME conditions, e.g., if most of the weight is on one side during a turn, or if they are holding onto the mast pulling it over, etc. You're describing the behaviour of a 15 foot centerboard boat, not a 26 foot cruiser. I guess that is the essence of my whole point: the Mac has to be considered as stable as small centerboard boat. If it is operated in accordance with the owners manual, it is stable, and it can be sailed in blue water. But you keep billing it as a blue water cruiser. (Jeff, if the Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of such reports every year.) There are major flaws in your logic here, Jim: First, a large number of 30,000 actually have a significant amount of hard ballast. In fact, some of his boats have a fairly conservative design, considering where he's coming from. In fact, the number of Max 26X's and M's is more like 5000. Nope. The water ballast boats include both the 26X, the 26M, and the previous model, known as the 26C. The total of those boats alone is far greater than 5,000. Secondly, I suspect that the vast majority of 26X sailors always keep the ballast tank full. I know the one down the dock from me fills in the spring and empties in the fall. Corollary to this, almost all Mac sailors will admit that in practice, the top speed is more like 10 to 12 mph, not the 18 knots you claimed on numerous occasions. And do you by any chance have some evidence (NOT ANECDOTES) supporting that particular assertion, Jeff? You keep trying to make this about Macs, but its really about your interpretation of the marketing hype. If you had said, "I probably will keep the tanks full therefore will probably only see 12 mph under power and 6 under sail, but that's good enough for me" I would have said, "fine, you understand the tradeoffs and made your decision." Well, Jeff, you are right that I will keep the tanks full under most conditions. As to whether I will only see 12 mph under power and 6 under sail, maybe I will, but maybe I will see higher figures. I'll report back later in the year. Face it, Jeff, the facts are that the skipper was drunk, gunning the engine, making a turn with an overloaded boat, and totally disregarding the most basic safety principles. Any normal 26 foot sailboat would not have had a problem. And what, exactly, is the evidence supporting your assertion, Jeff? Were you there at the scene, by any chance? Did you attend the trial? Have you read the transcript of the trial discussing the sequence of events that led up to the accident? I'll admit the skipper was negligent, but if this was virtually any other sailboat, nothing would have happened and two children would still be alive. Again, despite the drunken skipper and the apparently drunk passengers and the grossly negligent handling of the boat, the Mac design proved its superiority in that the boat stayed afloat, instead of sinking as would be the case with almost "any other sailboat" of equivalent size. Instead of sinking and drowning all the passengers, at least 8 of them survived. - A great verification of the Mac design, Jeff. Regarding the boat itself, I note that the flotation system apparently kept the boat afloat even in such severe and overloaded conditions. For any other 26 foot sailboat, this would not be a "severe and overloaded condition." And do you have any evidence to back up that very strange assertion, Jeff? For example, can you give me quotes from Hunter, or Catalina, or O'Day, to the effect that it would be safe to carry 10 passengers and a drunken skipper on one of their 26-foot boats? Had it not been for the particular design of the Mac26X with it's flotation backup and lack of a weighted keel, the boat would have probably sunk, drowning the skipper and the eight adults sitting on the deck. Had it not been for the particular design of the boat, there never would have been a problem and two children would still be alive today. Where's your evidence for that sarcastic assertion, Jeff? Think of the headlines, Jeff, "sailboat capsizes and is dragged to the bottom by its heavy keel (negligent design?) drowning all eight passengers." Now you're claiming that a keel boat would have rolled over like that??? You really don't know much about boats, do you Jim? Yep. I'm claiming that a 26-foot keel boat with a crew of 10 party guests and a severely drunk skipper who was gunning the boat while making turns to get back to shore could, indeed, have rolled over. Again, if you are saying that the Macs are inherently unsafe, where's your evidence Jeff? - He who asserts must prove. And all you have done is to spout a number of your predjudices as if they were fact. Shame on you, Jeff. You don't have any understanding of the principles of logic or the basic principles of intellectual honesty. I suppose that in one respect the story is a further affirmation of the potential value of the improvements made in the new 26M, which incorporates an additional 300 pounds of permanent ballast in its hull and additional flotation in the upper mast, making it an even safer boat than the 26X. Perhaps it was Roger's conscience speaking. Actually, I think it was driven by the v-bottom and the taller mast. And maybe the lawyers. In any event, improvements are made with each successive model, and the 26M incorporates wisdom achieved over the years from many prior designs. Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Jonathan Ganz wrote: Yes, you're an idiot. In other words, you think it was perfectly reasonable for her to hold her cup of coffee between her legs while she applied her makeup? Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
Jonathan Ganz wrote: Wow, that much math and physics... I mean wow! You also claimed to be a sailor. So far, all we've seen are a few fuzzy pictures of a piece of crap Mac. Actually, the pictures were rather sharp and clear. What do you want me to do, Johnathan? Do I have to enter my boat in the Galveston-Veracruz race to satisfy you? Post results from Sail magazine? I NEVER said that the boat was a racer or that it was suitable for blue water crossings. - So what, exactly, do you want me to do? Jim |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
"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. |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
Bought a Reinel 26'
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com