DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

Doug, I don't know where you were at the time


I do.

, but this was discussed

over and over again, ad nauseum, a few months ago.


Yep. You were wrong then, and you're wrong now. The "completely
different hull design" is a bit of advertising fluff from MacGregor.
There are a few differences in the deck & cabin molding.

A change from a hull with a substantially flat forward contour to one
with a deep-V configuration is merely "advertising fluff", and not a
substantive, change? - It's just the same hull with new color choices?
Or, a change from pivotable keel with a hull having a corresponding
12-inch deep cavity for receiving the keel, the cavity extending five
feet along the length of the hull and containing some 200 gallons of
water is also just more "advertising fluff", and not a real physical
change? The addition of permanent ballast is also just "advertising
fluff", and not a "real" change? The incorporation of dual bearing
mounts for the mast that permit it to rotate on its major axis with the
mainsail is just "advertising fluff", and not a "real" change?

Get real Doug. You may get some "atta-boy" points from Mooron and others
with comments like those, but you have lost all semblance of credibility
and logic. (But then again, maybe what you wanted in the first place was
merely some brownie points from Moron et. al.)

Jim