Ellen MacArthur wrote:

"JimC" wrote
| You don't get it, do you? The Mac 26 in its various embodiments is one
| of the most popular sailboats of this size ever built, with over 30,000
| sold. How many of the 30,000 have had failures of the steering system
| Ellen? Or, for that matter, failures of the running rigging, standing
| rigging, or hull?

Oh my Gawd! It's worse than I thought. 30,000 sold = 30,000 people who don't
really care about their own safety..... (or who won't admit they made a big mistake ;-)

Cute Ellen. But you still haven't addressed my point. - Which was that
in view of the fact that there were over 30K Macs sold, negative
comments from a few Mac Bashers on the web has little significance. If
you had four or five thousand reports from owners of Macs who were
complaining about their boats falling apart under sail, then you would
have information that would be statistically significant.


| You still haven't told us anything about the extent of this problem (if
| there was a problem), or about its criticality or seriousness (e.g.,
| whether or not a number of boats were disabled on the water). Also, if
| there were an ongoing problem, you apparently don't know what MacGregor
| did about it. (Neither do I, but I'm not the one bringing the
| accusations.) - As a suggestion, you could qualify your statements by
| admitting that you really don't know whether there were any serious
| problems, or whether they amounted to a general problem affecting a
| number of boats, but you did find some negative statements on the
| internet from people who you really don't know anything about, talking
| about situations that you also don't know much about, etc. Because
| that's about all you have come up with Ellen.

It's not up to me to prove anything to a disbeliever.

You were the one who introduced the criticisms of the Mac. It's up to
you to support your assertions.

You've made up your mind.

Well, I've made up my mind that the Mac has good and bad points, and
that most of them aren't falling apart under sail, and that lots of
those who criticize them don't actually have hands-on experience with
them, particularly the 26M. - Do you have any evidence (again, that's
evidence, as distinguished from anecdotes) that would contradict that
conclusion? If you do, then I'll be happy to reconsider my position.


I think it's revealing how you go on and on about it. It's like your trying to justify it
in your own mind.

I'm one of the few Mac owners on the ng and one of the few that has any
experience sailing the current model (the 26M) Mac. It's only reasonable
that I should step up from time to time and provide a little balance to
such discussions. (But you apparently don't like that. It sounds like
you want me to just turn tail and run. - Are my notes getting to you
Ellen?)

Talk to any knowledgeable sailor and they'll tell you Magregor 26s
have a history of being flimsy. You don't like facts it's plain.

Actually, I do like facts. It's slurs and second hand comments by people
who have little or no actual knowledge of what they are talking about
and no experience with the boat in question that I have a problem with.
The expression: "everybody knows....." usually comes from someone who is
too lazy to do their homework and get the facts. Is that you Ellen? Is
this discussion becoming just a little more difficult than you had
anticipated?


Safety isn't high on
your list. That's plain too.....

How ridiculous can you be Ellen? The Macs are one of the safest boats of
their class on the market. (ONCE AGAIN, where is your evidence and
statistics proving any extensive safety problems with the Macs? What
percentage of the over 30,000, have failed due to "flimsy" construction,
resulting in death or injury to any of the skippers or crew?)

(1) The Mac has positive flotation sufficient to keep it afloat even if
the hull is penetrated and the cabin filled with water. (2) It has a
double layer hull extending along most of the length of the boat, and a
puncture of the lower hull layer does not permit water to enter the
cabin. (3) It has no through-hulls (unless added by the owner) and no
through-hull valves, etc. No jammed through-hull valves, and no tubing
leaks. (4) Because it has no inboard motor, it needs no bore through the
hull for the shaft supporting the prop, and it needs no bushings, etc.,
sealing the shaft. (5) In the event the hull of a conventional vessel is
compromised and water enters the cabin, the massive keel of the boat can
quickly pull the boat under the surface and drag it down to the bottom
of the particular body of water. In some instances, conventional
sailboats have sunk in a manner of a few minutes after the hull was
compromised. In contrast, the Mac has a dagger board but no weighted
keel. Obviously, the Mac isn't built for extended ocean crossings, and
it's not comfortable in very heavy weather conditions. But it's still
one of the safest boats of its size out there.

Ellen, your statement that I don't care about safety because I sail a
Mac reveals once again that you really don't know what you are talking
about. You simply haven't done your homework.



| - - Not too bright? You mean the folks who call the MacGregor a
| dangerous pile of junk?

Now your putting words in my mouth. I never said they're a dangerous pile of junk. I just
said they're flimsy. They are flimsy and that's a well known fact.

Well now, are you saying that they're NOT a pile of junk, Ellen? Maybe
we're getting somewhere.


| Sure are. But when thousands of Mac owners obviously like their boats,
| and when over 85% of 26M owners state that they would buy the boat
| again, it strongly suggests that most Mac owners are happy with their
| boats.

Good grief. People say they like things they really don't like for any number of
reasons. The main reason is they're too embarrassed to admit they made a bad choice.
Garage sales are full of bad choices. Who's honest enough to say *I didn't know
what I was doing. I bought that thing because I didn't know any better. It was a mistake*?
Maybe ten people in 30,000? What a silly way to try to prove something is quality built.

Almost as silly as you claiming that you proved the Mac was flimsy and
unsafe because you found quotes from several people on the internet
criticizing them, or because "everybody knows that Macs are flimsy and
unsafe", right Ellen? Actually, from the Mac discussion groups I read,
lots of Mac owners are willing to criticize their boats from time to
time. Also, in my experience, there are lots of people who find the
internet a handy medium in which to blow off steam about problems they
are having with a particular company or product.


| Right. And similarly, if you only listen to the few who had major
| problems with their Macs, you also don't get the whole picture.

Anybody who hasn't had a problem with a MacGregor 26 just hasn't used it much...

Any evidence to back up that particular assertion, Ellen? No? I thought so.

(Actually, I rather think that owners of ANY boat are going to have some
kind of problems with them over time.)



| you post those kinds of accusations on the ng. I happen to be an
| attorney, and I would suggest that you might want to consult your own
| attorney before you accuse a company of gross negligence re a
| potentially hazardous condition such as this ("flimsy construction" that
| is putting people's lives at risk), if that's what you're actually saying.

Attorney? Well, that explains it. Your dumb as a box of rocks. Couldn't get a real
job, huh? I can say anything I want to say about any boat I want to say it about. Nobody
can censure my opinion. I say your biased. I say your stupid. I say you've a flimsy boat.
So sue me....

Obviously, this discussion is getting to you Ellen. - You're loosing it!

Jim