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.