Good Grief Jim, don't be such a coward! I've only quoted your exact words
several times now, then a month later you deny you ever said them? Is this what
they trained you to do in law school??

One more time: I commented that MacGregor had a long list of rather severe
warnings about the stability of the boat. Things that you would never see about
a "normal" sailboat. In particular, at speed without ballast, nobody should
use the forward cabin (or the head?), nobody on deck, no standing, avoid seas
greater than one foot, etc. I felt these warnings were likely justified, and a
bit in contradiction with marketing the boat as a safe family sailor that can to
18 MPH.

Your response was:
"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. "

How can anyone reasonably interpret your comments as meaning anything other than
the warnings don't have to be taken literally. Now you're trying to deny you
ever said them, but the record is still there, and always will be.

You seem to be claiming that the warning don't have to be followed because they
were written by lawyers, or are in some ways contradictory, or that they are
more like guidelines and one is better off just using common sense. But the
truth is the boat is capable of rolling over. Eight adults on deck was too
much, given that the warning specified 6 was the limit. Which warning would I
follow? I would never run the boat without ballast, especially with guests and
kids aboard. Thus I would not expect to ever see the speeds that you keep
claiming. Even the Mac sites make it pretty clear that loaded with gear and
passengers, the boat probably won't do better than 10 to 12 knots. I must admit
that the warnings are contradictory: don't you empty the tanks but running at
over 6 knots? Are you allowed to haul the boat if there's a chop over 1 foot?


As for the accident statitistics, I've already posted the link, and explained
where I got the figure. In 2002, there were 7 drowning deaths aboard auxiliary
sailboats. Two were in the incident we've talked about. There other five
victims were not wearing a PFD; the two children that perished on the MacGregor
were the only people that year that drowned on an auxiliary sailboat while
wearing life jackets.
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2002.pdf



So Jim, you've had the boat for 6 or 7 months now, have you sailed it yet?




"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:
"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:


You seemed interested in Mac but want a boat the won't capsize. You should
check this out:
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

Jim Cate will claim the skipper was drunk (true, but the passengers said

thatdidn't contribute) and that the boat was dangerously overloaded. The
truth

isthere were 8 adults on deck, when the recommended limit is 6. The 3 small
children below wouldn't add up to more than 140 pounds, and should have
been

lowenough in the boat to have little affect on stability. This may have
been a
fluke, but it doesn't seem to happen to other boats. This was the only
case
that year of a sailboat passenger drowning while wearing a life jacket.

The skipper's alcohol level was way over the limit, and the passangers
were also drinking.


And nobody ever drinks on a boat.


He was operating the boat in an unsafe manner
(turning it back to shore with multiple adults on the deck, and
operating it without the water ballast).


Turning the boat with "multiple adults on the deck" is unsafe? Isn't that
the
whole point here?

As for the water ballast, remember I brought this episode up in the
beginning
because you insisted that the warnings, such as the various warnings about
running without ballast, can be ignored. I believe you compared it to
warning
to "wear a seat belt on a Nautilus machine." The point is these warning
were
deadly serious - the boat is very dangerous when run without its water
ballast.
And yet, you continue to quote speeds that can only be achieved without
ballast.



In a recent news report on
this case, the judge rejected his defenses about the boat's purported
deficiencies and gave the "skipper" a stiff prison term.


I'm sure that MacGregor had a full staff of lawyers on hand to ensure their
boat
was not ruled inherently dangerous.


As to whether this is an inherent problem with the Macs, if there were
reports of multiple incidents such as this one under circumstances in
which they were operated with the water ballast as specified, one might
conclude that the boat has an inherent problem. However, despite the
thousands of Macs in use, no one has provided evidence of such an
ongoing pattern of Macs capsizing, as in this case.


In the last year reported by the Coast Guard, 28% of all drowning victims
aboard
auxiliary sailboats, were on Macgregors.

Where, exactly, can I get a copy of that Coast Guard report Jeff? Is it
reproduced on someone's website?

The point isn't that events like this happen all the time, or that its
likely to
happen to most owners. The point is that the boat is capable of rolling
over,
if misused in a way that would not be particularly dangerous on most other
boats. Having two people over the recommended limit is not usually
dangerous
in calm weather. Powering with people on deck is not usually dangerous.
Keel
boats, and water ballast boats with full tanks, cannot normally roll over in
calm weather. The Mac is an unusual boat, with unusual safety restrictions.
In
particular, extreme care must be taken whenever the ballast tanks are empty.
You, however, claimed these warnings can be ignored, and have quoted speeds
that
can only be achieved without ballast.


When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.) - What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.

On the other hand, IF you are suggesting that the warnings should be
strictly followed under all circumstances, then you should tell us which
portion of the warnings you want us to follow. - Are you talking about
the part that advises us never to use the boat without the water
ballast, or, conversely, are you talking about the sections that tell us
about using the boat without the water ballast? - You can't have it both
ways, Jeff.

Which part of the warning are you talking about Jeff?

Also, where, exactly, can I get a copy of that Coast Guard report?

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:
Good Grief Jim, don't be such a coward! I've only quoted your exact words
several times now, then a month later you deny you ever said them? Is this what
they trained you to do in law school??

One more time: I commented that MacGregor had a long list of rather severe
warnings about the stability of the boat. Things that you would never see about
a "normal" sailboat. In particular, at speed without ballast, nobody should
use the forward cabin (or the head?), nobody on deck, no standing, avoid seas
greater than one foot, etc. I felt these warnings were likely justified, and a
bit in contradiction with marketing the boat as a safe family sailor that can to
18 MPH.

Your response was:
"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. "

How can anyone reasonably interpret your comments as meaning anything other than
the warnings don't have to be taken literally. Now you're trying to deny you
ever said them, but the record is still there, and always will be.


You seem to be claiming that the warning don't have to be followed because they
were written by lawyers, or are in some ways contradictory, or that they are
more like guidelines and one is better off just using common sense. But the
truth is the boat is capable of rolling over. Eight adults on deck was too
much, given that the warning specified 6 was the limit. Which warning would I
follow? I would never run the boat without ballast, especially with guests and
kids aboard. Thus I would not expect to ever see the speeds that you keep
claiming. Even the Mac sites make it pretty clear that loaded with gear and
passengers, the boat probably won't do better than 10 to 12 knots. I must admit
that the warnings are contradictory: don't you empty the tanks but running at
over 6 knots? Are you allowed to haul the boat if there's a chop over 1 foot?

Yawn....How many times do we have to go through this routine, Jeff?
Seems to me we have spent enough time on this point already. - But if
you insist, ONCE AGAIN, the fact that the warnings obviously had legal
overtones, and the fact that they are contradictory, doesn't mean that
they should be ignored or dismissed out of hand. The fact that I suspect
that they have at least a partially CYA purpose also doesn't mean that I
would ignore the warnings, when taken IN CONTEXT with the rest of the
owners manual. For example, at page 1 of the owners manual for the 26M
it states IN BOLD, UNDERLINED PRINT, that THE BALLAST TANK SHOULD BE
FULL WHEN EITHER POWERING OR SAILING. This warning clearly states that
the tank should be full under all circumstances.

But on the same page, the manual also states that: "There may be times
when you wish to operate the boat with an empty ballast tank. For
example, when puling a water skier, when trying to conserve fuel, when a
faster ride is desired, ..." Obviously, when read in context, the first
statement is meant as a general warning, with apparent legal
overtones, which is expected to be read in light of the second section
dealing with operation of the boat WITHOUT the water ballast, under
certain conditions. - Once again, Jeff, the fact that the initial
warning may have been inserted at least in part with legal
considerations in mind, and the fact that I suspect it was, DOES NOT
mean that it should not be taken seriously. Nevertheless, it's clear
from the SECOND statement that , in fact, it is recognized that the boat
can be operated without the ballast under certain conditions. Jeff,
isn't this enough discussion on this issue? Can't we move on to
something else? - How many more times are you going to regurgitate the
same illogical argument?


As for the accident statitistics, I've already posted the link, and explained
where I got the figure. In 2002, there were 7 drowning deaths aboard auxiliary
sailboats. Two were in the incident we've talked about. There other five
victims were not wearing a PFD; the two children that perished on the MacGregor
were the only people that year that drowned on an auxiliary sailboat while
wearing life jackets.
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2002.pdf

Statistics don't lie, do they Jeff? But people like you can sure twist
them around. - What you have done, of course, is cherry-pick the one
year in which such an accident occurred and implied that this is
evidence that the MacGregor boats, as a whole, are inherently deficient
in view of this single example, extrapolated into a year's statistics. -

Of course, you didn't mention that the judge in the Martin case rejected
Martin's attorney's argument that the accident was a result of the
boat's instability instead of Martin's negligence and intoxication.
Despite all his lawyers arguments trying to place the blame on the boat,
Martin was given six years in prison. What you have done is to
generalize from a case in which there was a drunken skipper (with a .217
alcohol level), convicted of a crime, who tried to blame the boat but
didn't get away with it, and posted a technically accurate but highly
misleading statement about the percentage of deaths related to MacGregor
boats.

Jeff, I would think that even you would have some misgivings about
posting such twisted, deceptive garbage. Do you have ANY ethical
standards whatsoever? Is basic intellectual honesty completely foreign
to you?

So Jim, you've had the boat for 6 or 7 months now, have you sailed it yet?

Yes. - It's a great boat, lots of room, easy to handle, and fun to sail.


Jim





"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:



You seemed interested in Mac but want a boat the won't capsize. You should
check this out:
http://www.ne-ts.com/ar/ar-407capsize.html

Jim Cate will claim the skipper was drunk (true, but the passengers said

thatdidn't contribute) and that the boat was dangerously overloaded. The

truth

isthere were 8 adults on deck, when the recommended limit is 6. The 3 small

children below wouldn't add up to more than 140 pounds, and should have

been

lowenough in the boat to have little affect on stability. This may have

been a

fluke, but it doesn't seem to happen to other boats. This was the only

case

that year of a sailboat passenger drowning while wearing a life jacket.

The skipper's alcohol level was way over the limit, and the passangers
were also drinking.


And nobody ever drinks on a boat.



He was operating the boat in an unsafe manner
(turning it back to shore with multiple adults on the deck, and
operating it without the water ballast).


Turning the boat with "multiple adults on the deck" is unsafe? Isn't that

the

whole point here?

As for the water ballast, remember I brought this episode up in the

beginning

because you insisted that the warnings, such as the various warnings about
running without ballast, can be ignored. I believe you compared it to

warning

to "wear a seat belt on a Nautilus machine." The point is these warning

were

deadly serious - the boat is very dangerous when run without its water

ballast.

And yet, you continue to quote speeds that can only be achieved without

ballast.



In a recent news report on
this case, the judge rejected his defenses about the boat's purported
deficiencies and gave the "skipper" a stiff prison term.


I'm sure that MacGregor had a full staff of lawyers on hand to ensure their

boat

was not ruled inherently dangerous.



As to whether this is an inherent problem with the Macs, if there were
reports of multiple incidents such as this one under circumstances in
which they were operated with the water ballast as specified, one might
conclude that the boat has an inherent problem. However, despite the
thousands of Macs in use, no one has provided evidence of such an
ongoing pattern of Macs capsizing, as in this case.


In the last year reported by the Coast Guard, 28% of all drowning victims

aboard

auxiliary sailboats, were on Macgregors.

Where, exactly, can I get a copy of that Coast Guard report Jeff? Is it
reproduced on someone's website?

The point isn't that events like this happen all the time, or that its

likely to

happen to most owners. The point is that the boat is capable of rolling

over,

if misused in a way that would not be particularly dangerous on most other
boats. Having two people over the recommended limit is not usually

dangerous

in calm weather. Powering with people on deck is not usually dangerous.

Keel

boats, and water ballast boats with full tanks, cannot normally roll over in
calm weather. The Mac is an unusual boat, with unusual safety restrictions.

In

particular, extreme care must be taken whenever the ballast tanks are empty.
You, however, claimed these warnings can be ignored, and have quoted speeds

that

can only be achieved without ballast.


When, exactly, did I state that "the warnings can be ignored?" (Helpful
hint. - I didn't.) - What I said was that it should be understood that
the were written partially for legal purposes, for protecting MacGregor
from legal action. THAT DOES NOT MEAN that the warnings should simply be
ignored out of hand.

On the other hand, IF you are suggesting that the warnings should be
strictly followed under all circumstances, then you should tell us which
portion of the warnings you want us to follow. - Are you talking about
the part that advises us never to use the boat without the water
ballast, or, conversely, are you talking about the sections that tell us
about using the boat without the water ballast? - You can't have it both
ways, Jeff.

Which part of the warning are you talking about Jeff?

Also, where, exactly, can I get a copy of that Coast Guard report?

Jim

And the bottom line is that Macs suck!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
bs deleted

Jonathan Ganz wrote:
And the bottom line is that Macs suck!


Actually, it's a great boat. - Comfortable, lot's of room, responsive,
and fun to sail. According to a recent review, it's one of the worlds
most in-demand boats. - Over 5,000 of the previous model were sold, and
"indications are that the 26M, released in 2003, will be just as
successful." The article further notes improvements in handling,
pointing, etc., for the new 26M. The Mac isn't a good choice for a blue
water crossing, but it's great for the conditions many of us have,
particularly when it would take hours to motor out to a desired sailing
area in an "ordinary" keel boat limited by hull speed.

Jim

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ...
And the bottom line is that Macs suck!

Do they suck more than a old Cal 20? Glass house man, throwing rocks.

Joe

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Yawn....How many times do we have to go through this routine, Jeff?

I'm not the one who claimed the warnings were just lawyer talk that could be
ignored. That's what you said, when it suited your argument. Now you're
twisting and turning, trying to cloud the issue.

But you haven't addressed the real point: This boat needs the warnings. AIf
you don't follow the warnings you might die.


Since this has gone on for 6 months now, perhpas I should review:

You claimed the boat was capable of high speeds, which would permit you to go
offshore with gear and crew, and then return at 20 knots if the weather turned
bad.

I pointed out that the high speeds were only achieved with a completely stripped
down boat, not one load with such things as a mast.

You ignored comments and continued your claims.

I pointed out that Mac factory site had a page full of warnings of things you
should NOT do when running without ballast. This included operating in chop
over 1 foot, crew on deck, crew in the forward cabin, etc. In fact, they say
not to run without ballast if no one is nearby to rescue you! Clearly, without
ballast the boat has the characteristics of a dinghy, not a family cruiser.

You claimed that was just lawyer talk, like a warning on a Nautilus to wear a
seatbelt. Clearly you implied they could be ignored.

I gave a case where the warnings were ignored, and two children died.

You suddenly flip-flopped, claiming that was because the warnings were ignored.

Now you trying to have it both ways, saying that some warning can be ignored, as
long you agree not to sue if your children die as a result.


....




As for the accident statitistics, I've already posted the link, and
explained
where I got the figure. In 2002, there were 7 drowning deaths aboard
auxiliary
sailboats. Two were in the incident we've talked about. There other five
victims were not wearing a PFD; the two children that perished on the
MacGregor
were the only people that year that drowned on an auxiliary sailboat while
wearing life jackets.
http://www.uscgboating.org/statistic...stics_2002.pdf

Statistics don't lie, do they Jeff? But people like you can sure twist
them around. - What you have done, of course, is cherry-pick the one
year in which such an accident occurred and implied that this is
evidence that the MacGregor boats, as a whole, are inherently deficient
in view of this single example, extrapolated into a year's statistics. -


Yes, I'll agree this is a case of "statistics of small numbers." However, I did
post the link to the data several times.

My point however, was that as a class, auxilliary sailboats are vey safe. The
MacGregor a particular combination of features that makes it especially
dangerous, and thus its especially important to follow the warnings. It only
takes one incident to prove what can happen when you ignore the warnings.


Of course, you didn't mention that the judge in the Martin case rejected
Martin's attorney's argument that the accident was a result of the
boat's instability instead of Martin's negligence and intoxication.
Despite all his lawyers arguments trying to place the blame on the boat,
Martin was given six years in prison.

That's odd, when the woman scalded by boiling coffee was awarded a large
payment, you claimed it was a travesty. I guess the courts are only correct
when they support your side.

However, you may recall that I commented early on that he should be put in jail
for operating drunk and ignoring the warnings. I never claimed that the boat's
inherent instability could be used as his defense.




What you have done is to
generalize from a case in which there was a drunken skipper (with a .217
alcohol level), convicted of a crime, who tried to blame the boat but
didn't get away with it, and posted a technically accurate but highly
misleading statement about the percentage of deaths related to MacGregor
boats.

It isn't misleading - it points out that drowning while trapped in a capsized
auxiliary cruiser is a very rare event. You keep claiming that the Mac couldn't
be deemed dangerous unless there were hundreds (or did you say thousands?) of
deaths. All I've been trying to hilite is that one such incident is enough to
prove that the warnings should not be ignored. His drunkeness may be been the
immediate cause, but infact he didn't actually do anything that on a similar
sized keel boat would have been fatal.




Jeff, I would think that even you would have some misgivings about
posting such twisted, deceptive garbage.

You prefer to blatanly lie?


Do you have ANY ethical standards whatsoever?

And you prefer to blatantly lie?

Is basic intellectual honesty completely foreign to you?

And you prefer to blatantly lie? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer. Its just
lawyer talk, which we know can be ignored.

So why don't you tell us about taking your grand-children offshore, like you
were saying you would.

Actually, it's a piece of junk!

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
bs deleted

My Cal will outlast his Mac by about 100 years. It was built in 1965 and
still
going strong.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Joe" wrote in message
om...
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...
And the bottom line is that Macs suck!

Do they suck more than a old Cal 20? Glass house man, throwing rocks.

Joe

On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:46:50 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

My Cal will outlast his Mac by about 100 years. It was built in 1965 and
still
going strong.


It was crap in 1965. It was crap when the last owner threw it away.
it's crap today, and it will still be crap tomorrow.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!

And, it's still significantly better than a hunter.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Horvath" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 08:46:50 -0700, "Jonathan Ganz"
wrote this crap:

My Cal will outlast his Mac by about 100 years. It was built in 1965 and
still
going strong.


It was crap in 1965. It was crap when the last owner threw it away.
it's crap today, and it will still be crap tomorrow.





Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now!