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!


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:


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.

Jeff, you should understand that my concern is that the "Mac
discussions" held on this ng in the past have not really been fair,
balanced, considerations of the Macs. in which the issues were
considered in a balanced, rational matter. Instead, what has typically
happened is that some hapless Mac owner or inquirer has been ambushed by
10 or 15 very biased "experts", most of whom have never even sailed one
of the Macs, much less the current 26M model Upon getting attacked by
the sarcastic anti-Mac "experts," most of these poor souls become
intimidated and quickly move on, never stopping to ask what, exactly, is
the source of information relied on by all the "experts" who have just
jumped down their throat.

You'll be hard pressed to find (much) of the bashing from me. I've even agreed
on numerous occasions that the Mac is a reasonable choice for some, and that
over the years I've appreciated Roger's innovative approach.

Jeff, I have nothing against you personally.
You just happen to be the latest in a series of "experts" who have tried
to put me down and ridicule many, many aspects of the Macs.

I haven't ridiculed the boats so much as the marketing literature and sales
approach. Frankly, a 26 foot boat that can go 12 mph is impressive; why pile on
bull**** be insisting it can do 18 knots?



What's
obviously troubling you is that you haven't succeeded in putting me in
my place. - I keep popping back up.

Actually, you've dug your hole deeper, that's why you're popping up less
frequently!

Frankly I enjoy your posts, they're much better than the political drivel that's
taken over this board.

As I have previously explained, I
have professional responsibilities that keep me from following this ng
on a daily basis, like you and others. Still, I'm still here. I think
that what's bothering you is that most on this ng think that putting
down a Mac enthusiast is supposed to be a simple, easy task, sort of
like shooting fish in a barrel.

You really think that, don't you? Actually, I think most readers ignore these
threads, just like I ignore most of the political nonsense.

Yet it just doesn't seem to be working
in this case, right Jeff? And if you're honest, you would stop trying
to maintain that my remarks are completely vacuous and without merit. -
Instead, Jeff, you would be far more convincing if you were willing to
acknowledge (as have I with respect to some of your comments) that at
least some of my points are well taken.

Actually, one problem I have is that many of your "points" are just plain
boring. No one in the history of this board has bothered trying to claim that
they have a traveler, or adjustable jib tracks. No real sailor talks about
marketing hype and feature lists at all; the only thing that really matters is
what you've actually done with the boat. Since you haven't done anything yet,
all I can do is point out that your achievements aren't likely to live up to
your claims.

And your "double hull" thing was just plain silly.


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.

Wrong again Jeff. I admit "down below" that I ignore warnings on
Nautilus exercise machines that I might fall out of such machines onto a
carpeted floor one foot down and hurt myself.

When I listed many of the warnings that come with the Mac you claimed they are
not to be taken literally; they are like the seatbelt warnings on a Nautilus.
And you've said you regularly ignore those warnings. How else can we reasonably
interpret your intent here, other than meaning its OK to ignore the warnings
about the Mac?

....


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?


The above statements are all true, Jeff.

They may be "true" but these speeds can only be achieved running without
ballast, which is unsafe, and leaving behind key gear, such as the mast. Almost
every boat made can, under certain situations, achieve speeds much higher than
is normal, but the speed boaters normally quote is the speed that they can
achieve with the gear the normally carry, etc. I've heard factory people claim
they got my boat up to 17 knots, but when people ask me how fast it is, I tell
them my experience. Even though I've seen 13.5 knots, I tell them its usually
between 7 and 9, sometimes over 10 if conditions are perfect.

You, on the other hand, have taken the exaggerated claims and insisted that they
will apply in your daily use. But right from the start, we have to assume that
you will actually carry the mast on board, that you'll have a few passengers,
plus the appropriate gear. You'll probably fill your fuel and water tanks. And
while you may have flat water sometimes, if you're heading out the Houston Ship
Channel, you have to assume the chop will preclude running without ballast. And
powering offshore at 18 knots, especially in deteriorating weather, is probably
completely impossible.




Had I instead posted notes claiming that, under any conditions, and
regardless of the load or weather, one can always motor back at 15-18
knots, you might have a point.

By repeatedly insisting that your claims are "true" you have been implying that
they apply to your normal use. You keep approaching this as a lawyer, not a
sailor, Jim. My entire point has been that the various claims you've made will
not be achievable in normal use. Even though you admitted at times that I'm
correct, you keep claiming I'm bashing the Mac.

What's wrong with admitting that in practice, your speed will be 10-12 mph, its
still twice as fast as most 26 footers?

....



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.



So you think you have a great "gotcha" here, right Jeff? Sorry, no
cigar this time. - Your "gotcha" doesn't hold water. My discussion of
the notice was to the effect that I thought it revealed an intention to
minimize potential liability relating to the water ballast arrangement.
If one takes the notice literally, it would mean that owners of the
Mac 26M should NEVER motor or sail their boats without the water
ballast, because the first sentence of the warning says that the water
ballast tank should be full when EITHER powering or sailing. THEN, in
the next sentence, the notice refers the reader to instructions for
operating the boat without the water ballast. As I read the notice, the
most reasonable interpretation they want to provide a clear warning
about the potential danger of operating the boat without the water
ballast. But they then indicate that, particularly when motoring, many
owners will operate the boat without the ballast, when under moderate
conditions. Reading comments on the Mac discussion groups also, it seems
that many if not most of the Mac owners have operated their boats
without the water ballast.

You're going in circles here. You're saying that the owners can pick and
choose which warnings can be ignored, and which must be taken seriously. Yet
when two children die you say it was because negligence because the warnings
were ignored.

So tell us Jim, how fast have you gone without ballast?


The fact that the notice appears to indicate that MacGregor is
concerned about possible liability, and the fact that I suspect that it
entails some legal implications, DOES NOT MEAN that the underlying
message should not be taken seriously. As I have said several times, I
take their warnings quite seriously, even though, at the same time, I
also recognize that they entail what I suspect are some legal
considerations. I also think that they evidence a genuine concern for
the safety of Mac owners generally. Jeff, it's not a simple "either"
question, as you seem to suggest, but rather a "both-and" issue.


I don't doubt that some experienced skippers, in fairly protected situations,
push the limits by ignoring the warnings. This is true for all sorts of
products, and generally its a good thing. However, I don't see how this applies
to the majority of buyers, since the boat is marketed as a family cruiser. Most
people, in most situations, should heed the warnings and expect performance
consistent with following the warnings.




You should also remember that in the new Mac 26M an additional 300 lbs
of permanent ballast has been added, along with additional floatation in
the mast, so that even if you motor without a full ballast tank, the
boat still has a significant amount of (permanent) ballast. However,
motoring or sailing with the tank only partially filled, rather than
completely full or empty, is not recommended.

Once again, Jeff, the fact that the warnings entail legal overtones and
the fact that they are somewhat contradictory doesn't at all mean that
the underlying concerns evidenced by the notice shouldn't be taken
seriously. In other words, sometimes a little common sense is in order.

(But of course, your interest in the matter isn't in arriving at a
reasonable interpretation of the notice, is it Jeff?

On the contrary, you're the one who made claims that ignore both the warnings
and common sense. For instance, you claimed that you could get offshore, with
the boat loaded with guests and supplies, and get back ahead of bad weather, all
at 18 knots (or sometimes 18 mph).

The bottom line is that the high speeds can only be achieved with no ballast and
completely unloaded; this is not consistent with taking your grandchildren out
the Houston Ship Channel to sail "offshore."


No, your interest
in the matter is that you thought you had great "gotcha" trap going. -
Right Jeff? Once again, you need to go back to school and take that
"Logic 101" course, because you sure aren't evidencing any. On the
other hand, maybe you know that you're stretching the facts, and don't'
want to admit it. Maybe the problem is that you simply have a problem
with basic intellectual honesty.

Right Jim, you keep making this claim. But you haven't explained the logic
behind insisting that speeds achieved without the mast apply to your experience.
Come on Jim, your whole point is been that claims that make no practical sense
are still somehow "correct," but what's the point? Is that what you mean by
intellectual honesty?



Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are
8 adults on deck?

Jeff, my wife and I sailed on a new 25-foot Catalina (shoal draft, wing
keel) a few months ago. Judging by the very alarming heel experienced
when only ONE adult stepped onto the boat or moved around on it, it
would have been easy for the Cat to roll over with a load of eight
adults on top of the deck, particularly if the skipper was drunk,
gunning the motor in a turn, with the passengers also drinking. If they
were drinking and tried to hold onto the mast to keep from falling out
in a turn it would have been a slam "dunk" that the boat would roll
over.

Perhaps, but its also very likely that the boat would have popped back up after
dumping the passengers that were on deck. The Mac 26X turned turtle and stayed
there while the children trapped below drowned. If you think a small boat with
a 1000 pound keel will roll over the same way a Mac 26x with an empty tank will,
you know very little about boats.

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.


Nope, the vindication derives from the fact that eight passengers plus
the drunk skipper survived, despite the boat being operated and used in
a grossly negligent manner.

There were a number of other boat nearby, they would have survived in any case.
Besides, virtually all water ballast boats, and even many smaller keel boats,
have positive flotation. Had MacGregor not included this feature, it would have
been gross negligence on their part.





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.
...

Jeff, how often do you hear of MacGregors capsizing because they turned
too quickly under power? Maybe 300 a year? Or is it more like 200 a
year? Or perhaps 100 a year? No? How about 50 a year? - Surely, if the
Macs are as unstable and defective as you suggest, you could EASILY
easily find 50 reports of the boats capsizing each year because they
were turned too quickly, Jeff.

All you're saying is that virtually all Mac owners follow the warnings. All
I've been saying is that the warnings are deadly serious. Frankly you keep
missing the fundamental point here. You're the one who kept claiming the
warnings need not be taken literally, now you're saying that sometimes they must
be. Frankly, the real problem here was not the overloading or the drunk
skipper - these are things we see every weekend. The problem was have three
children down below. I'm sure the parents assumed they were relatively safe
because normally, 26 foot sailboats don't roll over.


....


But you already told us you don't wear that seatbelt, didn't you?

As discussed above, what I said was that I don't wear a seat belt when
working out on the Nautilus machines, Jeff. Do you think I ought to?
That's what the instructions say. I do, however, wear a seat belt when
driving my car. (For some reason, I'm really not too concerned about
falling out of the Nautilus machines to the carpeted floor a foot below
the seat.)


So there you go - you're admitting that the warning need not always be followed.
So when do you draw the line? How about when your grandchildren are aboard, or
when you're in a major ship channel, or when you're in the ocean, outside of
protection? In other words, many of the times you claimed you could go at 18
knots?

....

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.

Nope. The boat will motor at 18 mph under some conditions. I never said
that it would motor at 18 mph under ANY conditions or circumstances, or
even most of them, which is how you want to interpret my words.

No Jim, you kept repeating your claims after it was pointed out that its highly
unlikely you would ever achieve these speeds with your intended use. You can't
have it both ways, unless of course, if you're lawyer who doesn't actually care
about reality.



....

According to the Mac discussion groups, around 6,000 of just the 26X's
were made. Similarly, a large number of 26Cs were made. Previously,
MacGregor sold thousands of mostly smaller boats of various types. The
bottom line, Jeff, is that although you go on and on about the serious
defects of the Macs, you still can't come up with any evidence to back
up your incredible claims that there are serious safety defects in any
of the boats.

I've never characterized the stability issue as a "defect." I've only pointed
out that the warnings are deadly serious, not to be ignored, especially when you
have your grandchildren aboard. I have pointed out that this is an unusual
property for a 26 foot sailboat. I can't count the number of times I've told
someone, "Don't worry, it can't really tip over." I'm guessing that's what the
kids who drowned were told.


You are the one asserting that the Macs are defective and
unsafe. - YOU should provide the evidence to support your malicious
assertions.

I think that two dead children are all the proof needed to show that the
warnings should be heeded.




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.

That's not what I see on the Mac discussion groups, Jeff.

I easily found a thread with a title like "how fast do you really go?" One or
two posts claimed high speeds, but the majority of the responses were quite
conservative. I posted a number of them back in April but you chose to ignore
them. For instance, several people said it was hard to stay on plane if there
was a moderate chop.



....


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.

That's really considerate of you, Jeff. But as I have clearly
demonstrated, in this and in previous notes, the problem with your
interpretation of my comments is that you obviously interpret them in an
extremely biased manner, carefully looking for the nits rather than
than giving them a balanced, reasonable interpretation. You also love to
"cherry-pick" among the hundreds of notes I have posted, sniffing out
some that can be quoted out of context with the overall discussion
rather than considering them in context.

I've only insisted that you use common sense when you quote expected
performance. I don't think its biased at all to point out that speeds achieved
without the mast on board probably aren't too significant.



So you haven't been "bashing" the Mac 26M Jeff(even when you state or
infer that it is marketed under false or misleading claims, and that is
a seriously compromised, unsafe design).

I never said it was unsafe; I said that it would be unsafe if you ignored the
warning that you claimed did not have to be taken literally.


Well, in that vein, I think you
should also acknowledge that I haven't been "puffing" the Mac 26M by
claiming that it is "better than" other heavy displacement boats such as
the Valiant 40 or various other boats. For example, I never stated that
the Mac would out-sail the Valiant, with the Valiant's substantially
longer waterline and heavy keel (except possibly under special
conditions in which the Mac may be sailed on a plane), or that the Mac
would point higher, or provide a more comfortable ride in heavy weather,
etc. I also never stated that the Mac would be a suitable boat for
extended blue-water crossings, as would the Valiant and other similar
boats. I also never stated that it had enough storage room for an
extended cruise, etc.

So, do you want credit for not being a total loony tune? OK, you do seem to
have some sanity, unlike a few of the Mac posters.

Frankly, I think you've made great progress just since you've bought to boat.
You've started to back off from your worst claims.



Thus, with respect to all those criteria, many
sailboats are "better" than the Mac. So, Jeff, how about recognizing for
once that I also have tried to provide a balanced evaluation of the
Macs, recognizing that the Macs aren't a great sailboat in all respects.

OK, but I'd rather see some real trip reports from you. You've had it over 3
months and you've only been out 3 times? Good grief, man! I thought the point
of a boat like that is that its easy to go out for a quick trip!