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