| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Sailboat Recommendations please
I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little
sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? |
Danny wrote:
I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? All else being equal, a centerboard or keel/centerboard will outperform a shoal keel in every way by a noticable margin. Of course, the centerboard hoisting gear is a maintenance item... nothing comes for free. Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I don't think you're going to find standing headroom in a 25 footer. Now, if you can go to a Morgan 30 or Ericson 29, then sure. Meanwhile, you'll be hunting for a boat with long bunks and good elbow room. Hunters & Beneteaus are usually among the roomiest for their LOA. .... I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable ??? Catalinas are no better than average in any respect. In seaworthiness & stabilty & performance, I'd put them below average. ... but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Are you willing to put in a good bit of sweat equity? How about sinking some further money in for upgrades as time goes along? What is your size limit? You're going to have to settle for something older... consider a Chrysler 26 or Balboa 26 (last link below) Fresh Breezes- Doug King http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...38&slim=quick& http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...92&slim=quick& http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...42&slim=quick& http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...97&slim=quick& http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...46&slim=quick& http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...67&slim=quick& http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...70&slim=quick& http://www.yachtworld.com/core/listi...35&slim=quick& |
|
a mooring neighbor had an oday, i think it was 23' or 24'
paid somewhere around 3K for it for its size, it was a comfortable boat. center board outboard engine roller furling they sailed that little boat everywhere in long island sound (out to block island) and had a great time (brave souls!) sold it and upgraded 2 years later to a 35' it really depends on the kind of sailing you want to do how long you plan on staying aboard? provisions? fuel and water capacity electrical requirements etc. in my view, everything changes once you cross about 28' (including maintaining her...........kind of reminds me of somebody.................never mind) GF. "Danny" wrote in message om... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? |
oh boy...........you asked the wrong question
gf. "Danny" wrote in message om... What's a Mac? (Joe) wrote in message . com... (Danny) wrote in message . com... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? Get a Mac ! Joe |
In article ,
Danny wrote: What's a Mac? To do a terrible disservice to Louis Armstrong... If you don't know, you're better off. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
Oh crap.....
"Danny" wrote in message om... What's a Mac? (Joe) wrote in message . com... (Danny) wrote in message . com... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? Get a Mac ! Joe |
Danny wrote: What's a Mac? Actually, a Mac (MacGregor 26M) might serve your needs nicely. It's a lightweight, trailerable, water ballasted boat having a 1-foot (you read right) minimal draft with its dagger board up, and a 5-foot draft with the board down. It's termed a power-sailor, in that it can be powered at 15 - 20 mph with a 50 hp outboard quickly delivering you to a desired sailing area. It can then be sailed in the desired sailing area, then beached for picnics, etc., and then brought back to shore and stored on its trailer out the water (minimizing maintenance and marina fees). With a new 50 hp motor, the new models won't be available for $5,000, however. Despite the derogatory remarks you will see on this board regarding the Macs, more of them are sold each year than almost any other sailboat of comparable size. In addition to its versatility, the Macs can be pretty exciting to sail. As mentioned above, under power, in certain conditions, they can be brought to a plane, even with a full water ballast tank. It has sufficient bunk space to sleep 6, plus another two in the cockpit, although you probably wouldn't want to sail for an extended trip with more than two to four. It isn't a racer, and it doesn't have the room and stability of a 40-foot cruiser, so I don't think you should try to sail to England, or South America on such a boat. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, you probably won't get 6' 4" headroom on a small boat, although with the top pushed forward on the Mac, you will. As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank. Additionally, the mast is partially foam-filled, thereby resisting a complete "hurtling" of the boat under a broach. Additionally, the boat includes sufficient built-in foam floatation to keep the boat afloat even if its hull is severely compromised during a collision, etc. In other words, whereas most of the boats mentioned on this ng will quickly sink to the bottom if their hulls are compromised due to their heavily weighted keels, the MacGregor will stay afloat. One thing you should be aware of relative to the Macs. - Despite (or maybe because of) their popularity around the world, some of the old salts on this ng will ridicule your choice of a Mac from now till the cows come home. Its one of the few amusements that seems always to interest them, - Keep in mind, however, that most of them have never sailed the Mac 26M model. In fact, to be honest about it, most of the Mac-bashers on this ng really don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. It's always interesting to see their reaction when they are asked for some evidence to back up their wild statements about the Macs. (Such as their being light, under built, etc.) - Usually, they have no evidence whatsoever, and resort to wild and irrelevant anecdotes. (Fyi, the Macs are a light boat, so, of course, they use relatively light and simple standing rigging, etc.) More importantly, the Mac 26M is roomy, comfortable, and fun and exciting to sail. Jim (Joe) wrote in message . com... (Danny) wrote in message . com... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? Get a Mac ! Joe |
He bought one he wants to sell...
Cheers Jim Cate wrote: Danny wrote: What's a Mac? Actually, a Mac (MacGregor 26M) might serve your needs nicely. It's a lightweight, trailerable, water ballasted boat having a 1-foot (you read right) minimal draft with its dagger board up, and a 5-foot draft with the board down. It's termed a power-sailor, in that it can be powered at 15 - 20 mph with a 50 hp outboard quickly delivering you to a desired sailing area. It can then be sailed in the desired sailing area, then beached for picnics, etc., and then brought back to shore and stored on its trailer out the water (minimizing maintenance and marina fees). With a new 50 hp motor, the new models won't be available for $5,000, however. Despite the derogatory remarks you will see on this board regarding the Macs, more of them are sold each year than almost any other sailboat of comparable size. In addition to its versatility, the Macs can be pretty exciting to sail. As mentioned above, under power, in certain conditions, they can be brought to a plane, even with a full water ballast tank. It has sufficient bunk space to sleep 6, plus another two in the cockpit, although you probably wouldn't want to sail for an extended trip with more than two to four. It isn't a racer, and it doesn't have the room and stability of a 40-foot cruiser, so I don't think you should try to sail to England, or South America on such a boat. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, you probably won't get 6' 4" headroom on a small boat, although with the top pushed forward on the Mac, you will. As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank. Additionally, the mast is partially foam-filled, thereby resisting a complete "hurtling" of the boat under a broach. Additionally, the boat includes sufficient built-in foam floatation to keep the boat afloat even if its hull is severely compromised during a collision, etc. In other words, whereas most of the boats mentioned on this ng will quickly sink to the bottom if their hulls are compromised due to their heavily weighted keels, the MacGregor will stay afloat. One thing you should be aware of relative to the Macs. - Despite (or maybe because of) their popularity around the world, some of the old salts on this ng will ridicule your choice of a Mac from now till the cows come home. Its one of the few amusements that seems always to interest them, - Keep in mind, however, that most of them have never sailed the Mac 26M model. In fact, to be honest about it, most of the Mac-bashers on this ng really don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. It's always interesting to see their reaction when they are asked for some evidence to back up their wild statements about the Macs. (Such as their being light, under built, etc.) - Usually, they have no evidence whatsoever, and resort to wild and irrelevant anecdotes. (Fyi, the Macs are a light boat, so, of course, they use relatively light and simple standing rigging, etc.) More importantly, the Mac 26M is roomy, comfortable, and fun and exciting to sail. Jim (Joe) wrote in message . com... (Danny) wrote in message . com... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? Get a Mac ! Joe |
Oh ****, they woke him up.....
"Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Danny wrote: What's a Mac? Actually, a Mac (Big Mac) won't serve your needs at all. It's a lightweight, trailerable, water ballasted motor boat having a 1-foot boom (you read right) and a 5-foot mast. It's termed a POS ( Piece Of ****) , in that it can't be powered at 15 - 17 mph with a 50 hp outboard and can't be sailed in any sailing area. It can be trailered to the desired sailing area, then parked for picnics, etc., and then brought back to home and stored on its trailer out the water (where it would sink). With a new 50 hp motor, the new models will be available for $50,000. Despite the derogatory remarks from this board regarding the Macs, I stupidly bought one, and now regret it. Jimbo Defer- Cate |
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 14:37:59 +1200, Nav
wrote: He bought one he wants to sell... Cheers Maybe so. The original poster has a budget of $5k. Surely no one would pay more than that for one. |
On Wed, 15 Sep 2004 21:26:53 -0500, Jim Cate wrote
this crap: Danny wrote: What's a Mac? Actually, a Mac (MacGregor 26M) might serve your needs nicely. It's a piece of **** that is a half-assed powerboat, and a half-assed sailboat. No amount of spin will change the fact that it doesn't sail very well, and it doesn't power very well. Pathetic Earthlings! No one can save you now! |
Who let you out of your bilge???? Get back there right now!
(Gilligan...one flying monkey to the @$$ in Texas please.... "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Danny wrote: What's a Mac? Actually, a Mac (MacGregor 26M) might serve your needs nicely. It's a lightweight, trailerable, water ballasted boat having a 1-foot (you read right) minimal draft with its dagger board up, and a 5-foot draft with the board down. It's termed a power-sailor, in that it can be powered at 15 - 20 mph with a 50 hp outboard quickly delivering you to a desired sailing area. It can then be sailed in the desired sailing area, then beached for picnics, etc., and then brought back to shore and stored on its trailer out the water (minimizing maintenance and marina fees). With a new 50 hp motor, the new models won't be available for $5,000, however. Despite the derogatory remarks you will see on this board regarding the Macs, more of them are sold each year than almost any other sailboat of comparable size. In addition to its versatility, the Macs can be pretty exciting to sail. As mentioned above, under power, in certain conditions, they can be brought to a plane, even with a full water ballast tank. It has sufficient bunk space to sleep 6, plus another two in the cockpit, although you probably wouldn't want to sail for an extended trip with more than two to four. It isn't a racer, and it doesn't have the room and stability of a 40-foot cruiser, so I don't think you should try to sail to England, or South America on such a boat. Also, as mentioned elsewhere, you probably won't get 6' 4" headroom on a small boat, although with the top pushed forward on the Mac, you will. As to safety (unless you plan on lending your boat to a drunk skipper who is going to carry 10 or more passengers, severely overloading the boat), the Macs have a number of advantages over most boats mentioned on this ng. They include a double liner in the hull such that if the lower hull is penetrated, water from the resulting opening normally does not enter the cabin, due to the fact that it is maintained within the ballast tank by the upper wall of the ballast tank. Additionally, the mast is partially foam-filled, thereby resisting a complete "hurtling" of the boat under a broach. Additionally, the boat includes sufficient built-in foam floatation to keep the boat afloat even if its hull is severely compromised during a collision, etc. In other words, whereas most of the boats mentioned on this ng will quickly sink to the bottom if their hulls are compromised due to their heavily weighted keels, the MacGregor will stay afloat. One thing you should be aware of relative to the Macs. - Despite (or maybe because of) their popularity around the world, some of the old salts on this ng will ridicule your choice of a Mac from now till the cows come home. Its one of the few amusements that seems always to interest them, - Keep in mind, however, that most of them have never sailed the Mac 26M model. In fact, to be honest about it, most of the Mac-bashers on this ng really don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. It's always interesting to see their reaction when they are asked for some evidence to back up their wild statements about the Macs. (Such as their being light, under built, etc.) - Usually, they have no evidence whatsoever, and resort to wild and irrelevant anecdotes. (Fyi, the Macs are a light boat, so, of course, they use relatively light and simple standing rigging, etc.) More importantly, the Mac 26M is roomy, comfortable, and fun and exciting to sail. Jim (Joe) wrote in message . com... (Danny) wrote in message . com... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? Get a Mac ! Joe |
"hurtling"
What's that? S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "Trains are a winter sport" |
a boo boo
Scout "SAIL LOCO" wrote in message ... "hurtling" What's that? S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "Trains are a winter sport" |
SAIL LOCO wrote:
"hurtling" What's that? What your eyes do after viewing a Mac 26m not-sailing with it's sails up, synonomous with "be hurting", as "Oh my eyes be hurting after seeing that POS!". Cheers Marty S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster" "Trains are a winter sport" |
a boo boo Scout a stuttering ghost? |
Danny,
Just as I told you, after just a few hours, the Mac-Bashers have been stirred up and are swarming around in full force. - It's sort of like the effect one gets by turning on the light on roaches crawling around in a dark room. - The light tends to drive them insane, as you can clearly see from the notes already posted in this discussion string!! Jim Danny wrote: What's a Mac? (Joe) wrote in message . com... (Danny) wrote in message . com... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? Get a Mac ! Joe |
In article ,
Jim Cate wrote: Danny, Just as I told you, after just a few hours, the Mac-Bashers have been stirred up and are swarming around in full force. - It's sort of like the effect one gets by turning on the light on roaches crawling around in a dark room. - The light tends to drive them insane, as you can clearly see from the notes already posted in this discussion string!! If you buy a Mac, you'll know all about roaches, apparently. -- Jonathan Ganz (j gan z @ $ail no w.c=o=m) http://www.sailnow.com "If there's no wind, row." |
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 that didn't contribute) and that the boat was dangerously overloaded. The truth is there 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 low enough 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. Jim is also quick to tout other features of the Mac, while in fact they are common to many other "pocket cruisers." For instance, many small boats (virtually all with water ballast) have positive flotation. Its true that the Mac is relatively unique with its 50 HP engine, but even that can be had in other boats, at a price. But at $30K the Mac isn't cheap, and I'm not sure I'd want an older one, although you could probably have one pretty cheap. How about a Catalina 25 with a pop top? "Danny" wrote in message om... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? |
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 that didn't contribute) and that the boat was dangerously overloaded. The truth is there 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 low enough 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. 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). 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. 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. Jim Jim is also quick to tout other features of the Mac, while in fact they are common to many other "pocket cruisers." For instance, many small boats (virtually all with water ballast) have positive flotation. Its true that the Mac is relatively unique with its 50 HP engine, but even that can be had in other boats, at a price. But at $30K the Mac isn't cheap, and I'm not sure I'd want an older one, although you could probably have one pretty cheap. How about a Catalina 25 with a pop top? "Danny" wrote in message om... I've been sailing Hobie Cats, windsurfers and all sorts of little sunfishy kind of things for years. I have sailed a few mid 20's Catalina Sailboats as crew with success. I am planning on buying a used 25 foot sailboat and need to know recommendations. What I'd like to have is something with small draft as I'll be sailing a shallow bay. Swing Keel I guess or maybe a shoal keel gives me the same draft? Good sleeping space and standing space would be nice as I am 6'4". I also would liek a compromise between stability and performance. I understand Catalina's are great because they are virtually un-capasizable but maybe something that would be a bit more fun and still pretty damn hard to flip. I'm ready to spend up to $5,000 US. Whaddya think all? |
A Dana 24 has standing headroom, nice bunks and is a TUFF boat. Many
have crossed oceans. But kiss $5000 idea goodby. As for Macs. I have " sailed one" and watched the pathetic handling charistics as two local owners tried to dock them . The older Macgregors is a better deal still with water ballast but tiller feel sucks. The older 26`s also do sail fairly fast. Just becareful walking on the decks. Very soft and give a lot. Get a copy of Soundings and look at boats offered. Gee a Compac 16 has bunks long enough for you, as long as you are not heavyset. Looking at Compacs might not be a waste of time. But forget standing head room. I`m 6`2 and have no problem cooking while sitting. Most time is spent outside anyway, or LAYING DOWN inside. |
Danny Jim Cates claims we are all MAC bashers. Nope we are NOT. My
advice to you is sail lots of boats including the MACS 26M and the vintage Macs. feel hulls ,walk on decks. Sail the boats when there ie a breeze above 15 mph. Also when there is little breeze. OOPS thats when Macs need a stupid 50 hp motor. |
Macs are a lousy boat Macboy.
-- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "Jim Cate" wrote in message ... Whaddya think all? |
Ummm... just be sure you have water in the balast before you walk the decks
on the Mac. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com "RICHARD" wrote in message ... Danny Jim Cates claims we are all MAC bashers. Nope we are NOT. My advice to you is sail lots of boats including the MACS 26M and the vintage Macs. feel hulls ,walk on decks. Sail the boats when there ie a breeze above 15 mph. Also when there is little breeze. OOPS thats when Macs need a stupid 50 hp motor. |
"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 that didn't contribute) and that the boat was dangerously overloaded. The truth is there 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 low enough 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. 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. |
"Jeff Morris" wrote in message ... The Mac is an unusual boat, That's a nice way of putting it. Scotty |
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 |
Macs are terrible boats, warnings or not.
"Jim Cate" wrote in message ... 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 |
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! |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:20 PM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com