Bought a Reinel 26'
 

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

Joys of sailing
 

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

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"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''.

Joys of sailing
 

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"

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

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

Joys of sailing
 

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

Joys of sailing
 

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!

Joys of sailing
 

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.

Joys of sailing
 

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!

Joys of sailing
 

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

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jeff Morris wrote:
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?


Actually, although I had heard reports that she was putting on makeup, I
was dead wrong. - Apparently she wasn't putting on makeup. Instead, she
was trying to force the top off the cup, and having difficulty doing so.
What she should have done, of course, was wait until she could hold the
cup securely somewhere other han over her lap, and THEN try to get the
top off. In other words, if she was having trouble getting the top off a
cup of coffee held over her lap in a car, she should have realized that
she shouldn't continue forcing the top off, in the car. t

But I wasn't wrong with respect to the underlying issue, which is that
entire country is suffering from the exorbitant law suit recoveries
obtained by such hot shot lawyers.

I got the basic fact right, Jeff. 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, should pay for their
was negligence. - This was confirmed when the award was substantially
reduced on appeal.

The 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. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a major factor
in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance,
to levels beyond those that many people can afford. In other words,
Jeff, because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done) punitive tort recoveries
are a major reason that millions of American citizens can't get or can't
afford meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the
precarious status of Medicare, lack of care for the indigent, etc.,
Additionally, related 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 in our laps while we sit 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!

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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


You maynot shop at MacDonalds, or buy Macs. But have you, or will you,
ever have to go to a hospital, Johathan? If so, unless you are one of
the lucky ones (like me) who has adequate health insurance from your
employer, there is a high probability that you will be billed for a
very, very large amount of money. So large that it may mess up your
whole life.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Jim Cate" wrote


The 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. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a major factor
in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance,
to levels beyond those that many people can afford. In other words,
Jeff, because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done) punitive tort recoveries
are a major reason that millions of American citizens can't get or can't
afford meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the
precarious status of Medicare, lack of care for the indigent, etc.,
Additionally, related costs to businesses add to unemployment and
underemployment in many sectors of our economy.

Jim's right, just as boats like the Mac26XM raise insurance for the rest of
us real sailors. it ain't fair!

SV

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.

Actually, Jeff, in case you hadn't noticed, most people who buy hot
coffee actually expect it to be hot. It's often served somewhat hotter
than they normally drink it. - In fact, part of the enjoyment of
drinking a cup of hot coffee is the conversation occuring as you wait
for it to cool off a little to permit you to drink it. You take small
sips of it initially, while it's still too hot to gulp down, and then
you take longer sips as it gradually cools down. Most people, including
me, would object to coffee served lukewarm such that we have to gulp it
down immediately before it gets cold. That's why they call it a "coffee
break," Jeff.

In any event, most people recognize that you need to check out the
coffee by sipping it before you gulp it down, or before you try to jerk
the top off while holding it above your lap.

Jim



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'
 

Actually, although I had heard reports that she was putting on makeup, I was dead wrong. - Apparently she wasn't putting

on makeup. Instead, she was trying to force the top off the cup, and
having difficulty doing so. What she should have

done, of course, was wait until she could hold the cup securely
somewhere other han over her lap, and THEN try to get

the top off. In other words, if she was having trouble getting the top
off a cup of coffee held over her lap in a car,

she should have realized that she shouldn't continue forcing the top
off, in the car. t

But I wasn't wrong with respect to the underlying issue, which is that entire country is suffering from the

exorbitant law suit recoveries obtained by such hot shot lawyers.

I got the basic fact right, Johnathan. 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,

should pay for their was negligence. - This was confirmed when the award
was substantially reduced on appeal.

The 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. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a
major factor in the continued rise in the costs

of health care and medical insurance, to levels beyond those that many
people can afford. In other words, Jeff,

because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done)

punitive tort recoveries are a major reason that millions of American
citizens can't get or can't afford

meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the precarious
status of Medicare, lack of care for the

indigent, etc., Additionally, related 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 in our laps while we sit in our
car. - Does that give you some nice warm

fuzzies Jonathan? Oh I forgot. You don't go to MacDonalds.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Marc wrote:

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

And, of course, the damages were substantially reduced on appeal.

I still think that when people order hot coffee, they expect it to be
hot, and when they order a coke, they expect it to be cold. In both
circumstances, most people take appropriate precautions.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

"Jim Cate" wrote

In any event, most people recognize that you need to check out the
coffee by sipping it before you try to jerk off while holding it above
your lap.

Jim


Good point, Jimbo.

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Donal" wrote in message
...




zmaybe if that had been the situation. However, she wasn't at the wheel, she
wasn't driving, and contrary to Jim's repeated calims, she wasn't putting on
makeup.

Of course, what actually happened was that MacDonalds sold her a cup of
hot coffee, and she didn't take appropriate care in opening it in her
car. She had trouble getting the top off a cup of hot coffee. But
instead of realizing that she should wait until she could remove the top
safely, she kept on pulling on it until she spilled the coffee in her lap.

WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED was that a hot-shot contingency lawyer was able
to show some highly inflamatory pictures of her burns to a jury, and the
jury was so enraged that they awarded a multi-million dollare punative
damages against MacDonalds, REGARDLESS of who was at fault, or whether
MacDonalds should be forced to pay despite the acions of the customer.

I was wrong about her putting on makeup, but I wasn't wrong with respect
to the underlying issue, which is that entire country is suffering from
such exorbitant law suit recoveries obtained by such hot shot lawyers.

I got the basic fact right, Jeff. 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, should be penalized
for their negligence. - This was CONFIRMED when the award was
substantially reduced on appeal.

The 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. Where they relate to medical issues, they are a major factor
in the continued rise in the costs of health care and medical insurance,
to levels beyond those that many people can afford. In other words,
Jeff, because of tort recoveries such as that one (ignoring who was at
fault, and what both parties SHOULD have done) punitive tort recoveries
are a major reason that millions of American citizens can't get or can't
afford meaningful health care. It's also a major factor in the
precarious status of Medicare, lack of care for the indigent, etc.,
Additionally, related 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 in our laps while we sit in our car. - Does that give you
some nice warm fuzzies?

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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

The point is that you don't know the facts, Jonathan. You don't know how
many complaints MacDonalds had received because their coffee wasn't
served hot enough, as most people prefer.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jeeze, is Jim 'coming on' to Jeff?

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Does that give you some nice warm fuzzies?

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

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.

Nope. I said nothing of the kind. And have never suggested that I intend
to ignore them. My point was that differen't portions of the warnings
said different things.


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!


Nope, not at all. There is no rule that states that you can't use some
common sense regarding warnings you get regarding a new product.

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.


Wrong again, Jeff. Although I don't wear seatbelts when working out on
the Nautilus machines (since the "fall" to the carpeted, cushioned floor
would only be about a foot) I DO wear seatbelts when driving or riding
in a car, and I DO keep the ballast full when operating my boat. - In
other words, there's a difference between sliding off the seat of a
Nautilus machine onto a carpeted floor, and being involved in an
automobile accident. Again, a little common sense is sometimes useful.

Jim








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.

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jim is right.

SV

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

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

The point is that you don't know the facts, Jonathan. You don't know how
many complaints MacDonalds had received because their coffee wasn't
served hot enough, as most people prefer.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Donal wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

Well, we can see that you're quite a sailor. I'm sure you can find
a couple of other excuses for not sailing.



Jon,

I used to have a powerboat.

I once(maybe twice) went out while under the influence. I "showed off" to
the guests by putting the helm hard over at 35 kts. It was great fun, but
we were lucky that I didn't sink the boat.

If I had capsized the boat, then it would have been *my* fault.... and my
fault alone.

I now sail "dry".



I had a friend who was driving a power boat while ONE friend sat on the
forward deck. The skipper was showing off by making a series of sharp
turns. In the process, his friend was thrown off the boat and run over
by the prop. No one blamed the manufacturer of the boat, but it was a
tragic, life altering event.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Alan Gomes wrote:

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


What I was pointing out was that a good number of the contributors to
this ng have claimed that the Macs are a pile of crap, and that they are
dangerously underbuilt. They then try to "prove" their assertions by
citing one or two anecdotes about Mac owners being stranded, and/or
about the drunk skipper incident. My point is that, despite repeated
queries, no evidence has been provided about any reports of owners or
passengers being drowned or injured because of such supposed structural
or design deficiencies. I also pointed out that there are lots of folks
on this ng who clearly would love to be able to throw more dirt at
MacGregor and at MacGregor owners. (If you don't believe this, take a
look through recent discussions of the Mac.) Although you are right that
it's possible that there are reasons that such problems wouldn't gain
widespread publicity, in view of the ongoing Mac-Bashing on this ng
(which has been going on for over five years), it seems highly unlikely
that a fundamental structural or design defect in the Mac wouldn't be
discovered and posted all over the net. It's possible, of course, just
as it's possible that the earth will be hit by a huge asteroid next
year, killing us all. - But not likely, IMO. (Incidentally, do YOU have
any evidence to support YOUR particular theory?)

Jim



"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

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

I believe 'bow riding' is illegal in MD..

SV



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

I had a friend who was driving a power boat while ONE friend sat on the
forward deck. The skipper was showing off by making a series of sharp
turns. In the process, his friend was thrown off the boat and run over
by the prop. No one blamed the manufacturer of the boat, but it was a
tragic, life altering event.

Jim

Joys of sailing
 

JAXAshby wrote:

god, I can't fricken believe a Mac 26 owner is arguing with a training wheels
owner about seaworthiness of boats!!

neither one of them is *ever* going to see Force 4 winds -- let along Force 5
winds, so what are they arguing about anyway?



And your point is? - -

Are you saying that if you don't go out in Force 4 or Force 5 winds you
can't enjoy sailing your boat? Are you saying that I can't enjoy sailing
my boat if I don't sail it in Force 5 winds?

What exactly ARE you saying, JAX?

Jim

Joys of sailing
 

SAIL LOCO wrote:

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"

If he had his sails trimmed properly and his keel adjusted properly, he
would be moving. And I don't know which Mac boat he was sailing.
Obviously, I don't know what the circumstances were in your anecdote.
But I do know that anecdotes don't prove anything, Loco.

Jim

Joys of sailing
 

katysails wrote:

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....


Maybe, but I'm not a four year old. I have been sailing for over 35
years, and I have sailed on a number of boats.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jim's right.

"Jim Deafer Cate" wrote ...



What I was pointing out was that the Macs are a pile of crap,
and they are dangerously underbuilt.

Joys of sailing
 

Horvath wrote:

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.


And exactly which Mac was that Horvath? - Was it the Mac 26M? And how
long had the skipper sailed the boat?


Jim

Joys of sailing
 

I am saying Force 4 winds are baby winds. I once knew a guy who wouldn't crew
on his brother's J-30 race boat unless the winds were over 30 knots. He said
he would rather drink beer and stuff dollar bills in the dancers' panties.



JAXAshby wrote:

god, I can't fricken believe a Mac 26 owner is arguing with a training
wheels
owner about seaworthiness of boats!!

neither one of them is *ever* going to see Force 4 winds -- let along Force
5
winds, so what are they arguing about anyway?



And your point is? - -

Are you saying that if you don't go out in Force 4 or Force 5 winds you
can't enjoy sailing your boat? Are you saying that I can't enjoy sailing
my boat if I don't sail it in Force 5 winds?

What exactly ARE you saying, JAX?

Jim

Joys of sailing
 

JAXAshby wrote:

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.

I was actually referring to Jeff, not me.

Jim

Joys of sailing
 

Jeff Morris wrote:

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.


As they say, statistics don't lie, but liars.......

Jim

Joys of sailing
 

"Jim Deafer Cate" asks the age old question....

What exactly ARE you saying, JAX?

Joys of sailing
 

yeah, jim, sure.

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"

If he had his sails trimmed properly and his keel adjusted properly, he
would be moving. And I don't know which Mac boat he was sailing.
Obviously, I don't know what the circumstances were in your anecdote.
But I do know that anecdotes don't prove anything, Loco.

Jim

Joys of sailing
 

not likely.

Maybe, but I'm not a four year old. I have been sailing for over 35
years, and I have sailed on a number of boats.

Jim

Bought a Reinel 26'
 

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I'm sorry. Did I give you the impression that I wanted you to do
something. I'm just having some fun with you. I'm sure your
Mac is just *perfect* for your abilities and needs.


Like, with 35 years of sailing on Valiants, O'Days, Endeavors, Cals,
Cats, etc., I finally found a boat that has all the capabilities I need
in one package, Johnathan?





Please don't
do something foolish, ahem, like enter it in the race.


I'll think about it first.

Jim

Joys of sailing
 

And how
long had the skipper sailed the boat?

longer than the Cal 20 owner?

Joys of sailing
 

As they say, statistics don't lie, but liars.......

Jim

jim? are you saying the US Coast Guard is lying? wanna explain why you feel
that way. I mean, they are most certainly draft-dodging chicken squats, but
liars as well? explain, jim.

Joys of sailing
 

and, what the hell does THAT have to do with your incorrect usage of the
English language??


From: Jim Cate
Date: 8/9/2004 11:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:



JAXAshby wrote:

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.

I was actually referring to Jeff, not me.

Jim