"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.