Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one
factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation,
the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the bottom
by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your
no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time posting
childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a
decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that matter,
so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry.

Jim



Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the
conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal
(even he isn't suicidal).

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be
dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an
option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the
boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time
to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and sharp
objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of flying
hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush. In
desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either be
thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself from
the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't survive.



Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200
miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say
was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed
afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a
heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all, he
could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative, critical
notes on this ng.)

You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps
even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and
actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case.
But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to
support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs
that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't think
anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull**** posted on
the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming that the
skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty ballast tank,
and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do you actually
have some valid evidence or proof supporting your assertions? -Including
your assertion that the the Macs will roll over and over and over and over
again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll? If the latter, i.e., if you
have some valid evidence, let's see the evidence and statistics
supporting your theories. You also say that the Macs will simply "break
up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your evidence, other than anecdotes
and hearsay, supporting this assertion?

And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE,
OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.

In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact
remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the
only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.

Jim



Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll?

What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your
assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any
susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it
over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few
degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further
movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm
assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying
that the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not
going to be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself
quickly.

If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac
out in those
conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL


It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather
than what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would
take the boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want
to take the boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to
float even if the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange
circumstance, the boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would
be better than being on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to
the bottom by its heay keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull
is completely torn apart, there is sufficient floatation to keep the
boat afloat even if the hull is compromised.

I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to
back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one
factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation,
the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the
bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your
no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time
posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't
make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for
that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending
sophistry.

Jim



Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the
conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal
(even he isn't suicidal).

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be
dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an
option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the
boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time
to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and
sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of
flying hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush.
In desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either
be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself
from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't survive.



Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200
miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say
was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed
afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a
heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all,
he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative,
critical notes on this ng.)

You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps
even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and
actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case.
But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to
support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs
that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't
think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull****
posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming
that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty
ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do
you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your
assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over
and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll?
If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the
evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say that the
Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your
evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion?

And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE,
OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.

In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact
remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the
only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.

Jim



Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll?

What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your
assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any
susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it
over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few
degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further
movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm
assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying that
the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not going to
be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly.

If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac
out in those
conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL


It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather than
what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take the
boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take the
boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even if
the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange circumstance, the
boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than being
on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its heay
keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn apart,
there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised.

I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to
back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Jim


I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy
seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean
in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows
this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in
ocean conditions? I have.

So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read Fastnet
Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several boats.
They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where the
crews abandoned them (to their peril).

You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a
dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally unstable.
That's a pretty weak assumption.

From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about
boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking. If the boat
is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat
won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I
love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at
it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point...
QED.

You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post.
I'm not man..... LOL


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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Capt. JG wrote:



"JimC" wrote in message
...



Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one
factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation,
the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the
bottom by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your
no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time
posting childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't
make a decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for
that matter, so we can look forward to more of your never-ending
sophistry.

Jim



Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the
conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal
(even he isn't suicidal).

Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be
dismasted for sure. Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an
option), your only chance for survival would be below decks, while the
boat rolled over and over and over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time
to time. It would be like being in a washing machine with heavy and
sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a non-habitable environment of
flying hazards including yourself that would break your bones into mush.
In desperation to escape, you would vacate the premises, and then either
be thrown off the boat by the wave action or you would remove yourself

from the boat deliberately. Either way, you wouldn't survive.


Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
unsupported. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac 200
miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID say
was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed
afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a
heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his no-boat-at-all,
he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative,
critical notes on this ng.)

You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over, perhaps
even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and
actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the case.
But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have to
support this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the Macs
that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't
think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull****
posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming
that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty
ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm anchor), do
you actually have some valid evidence or proof supporting your
assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll over
and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps pitchpoll?
If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the
evidence and statistics supporting your theories. You also say that the
Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your
evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion?

And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE,
OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.

In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the fact
remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not the
only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.

Jim



Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll?

What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your
assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any
susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull it
over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few
degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further
movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm
assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying that
the boat wouldn't roll under any circumstances, but that's not going to
be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly.

If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac
out in those

conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL


It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather than
what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take the
boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take the
boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even if
the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange circumstance, the
boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than being
on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its heay
keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn apart,
there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull is
compromised.

I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to
back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.

Jim



I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy
seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean
in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows
this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in
ocean conditions? I have.-

But do you have evidence that a dismasted M26 would roll over in heavy
seas? - That happens to be the issue of this particular discussion.


So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over?

Did I say that? Don't think so.

Perhaps you should read Fastnet
Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several boats.
They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where the
crews abandoned them (to their peril).

You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a
dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally unstable.
That's a pretty weak assumption.

Again, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes, hearsay, or
speculation) that the Mac 26Ms typically become "totally unstable" in
such conditions? No? I didn't think so.


From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much about
boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Once again, did I say that? Don't think so.

If the boat
is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat
won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly. I
love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny. Keep at
it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my point...
QED.

You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this post.
I'm not man..... LOL


So you're not slamming the Macs after all Capt? Really? - You certainly
had me fooled.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .
I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on
the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present
that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from
side to side in ocean conditions? I have.-

But do you have evidence that a dismasted M26 would roll over in heavy
seas? - That happens to be the issue of this particular discussion.

Nope. I also don't have evidence that cockroaches are smarter than
elephants. So, back at you... do you seriously believe that a dismasted boat
is stable in heavy seas? Because that's the real discussion whether or not
you choose to acknowledge it.


So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over?

Did I say that? Don't think so.

You pretty much did in your previous comment. You should read what you
write. It's a gas.

Perhaps you should read Fastnet
Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several
boats. They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point
where the crews abandoned them (to their peril).

You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a
dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally
unstable. That's a pretty weak assumption.

Again, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes, hearsay, or
speculation) that the Mac 26Ms typically become "totally unstable" in such
conditions? No? I didn't think so.

As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case. Yes,
I know so.


From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much
about boats. A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Once again, did I say that? Don't think so.

You don't know much about boats... clearly, and I do think so.

If the boat
is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat
won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly.
I love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny.
Keep at it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my
point... QED.

You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this
post. I'm not man..... LOL


So you're not slamming the Macs after all Capt? Really? - You certainly
had me fooled.

Well, that's apparently pretty easy to do!

Feel free to show us some empirical evidence that a Mac will not roll,
capsize, and kill anyone stupid enough to be in the conditions previously
described. Nope, didn't think you could.

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .

I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
heavy seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on
the ocean in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present
that shows this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from
side to side in ocean conditions? I have.-

But do you have evidence that a dismasted M26 would roll over in heavy
seas? - That happens to be the issue of this particular discussion.


Nope. I also don't have evidence that cockroaches are smarter than
elephants. So, back at you... do you seriously believe that a dismasted boat
is stable in heavy seas? Because that's the real discussion whether or not
you choose to acknowledge it.

Actually, that's not the "real discussion." My initial comments related
to my contention that, had Joe been in a Mac 26M, his boat would have
remained afloat. Whether or not he would still want to call the CC, in
view of his wife's condition, is another issue. In either case, he
wouldn't have lost his boat. And had he elected to stay on the boat, he
wouldn't have sunk when the boat sank.





So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
means that it won't capsize over and over?

Did I say that? Don't think so.


You pretty much did in your previous comment. You should read what you
write. It's a gas.

Not nearly as interesting as the sensationalized fiction you have bee
posting Capt.



Perhaps you should read Fastnet
Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several
boats. They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point
where the crews abandoned them (to their peril).

You're assuming a situation that likely will not be possible after a
dismasting with someone trying to stay on a boat that is totally
unstable. That's a pretty weak assumption.

Your comments regarding the instability of dismasted boats apparently
assumes that, with the mast, the crews would have been able to keep
their boats stable by reducing, possibly heaving to. But in heavy seas
such as those Joe described (the conditions observed several hours prior
to the CC rescue), it seems likely that a boat would not stay on course
when hoved to. For example, when the boat was below the waves, the winds
would be erratic, and the boat would wander about unpredictably, ready
to be broad sided by the next wave. As stated above, I personally think
it would be wiser to deploy a sea anchor and forget about trying to
heave to. But in any case, you don't have evidence or proof that one or
both of these tactics would be for a boat in the situation Joe
described. You also don't have evidence or proof that a Mac 26 would
roll and roll and roll if a sea anchor were deployed, whether or not it
was dismasted. In any case the boat has floatation that would keep it
afloat, which would be preferable to being pulled to the bottom by a
heavy keel in a boat with no floatation.


Again, do you have any evidence (other than anecdotes, hearsay, or
speculation) that the Mac 26Ms typically become "totally unstable" in such
conditions? No? I didn't think so.


As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case. Yes,
I know so.

Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a
conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation.




From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much
about boats.

It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic
principles of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to
recognize it, much less admit it.


A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Once again, did I say that? Don't think so.


You don't know much about boats...


And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of
evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand
that fact, much less admit it.




clearly, and I do think so.





If the boat

is water-tight, a relatively straightforward thing to do, then the boat
won't sink. The interior will become untenable, however, pretty quickly.
I love it... "as unpleasant as that would be." Now that's truly funny.
Keep at it Jim, you're providing lots of cheap laughs, again proving my
point... QED.

You seem to think that I'm slamming that piece of garbage Mac in this
post. I'm not man..... LOL


So you're not slamming the Macs after all Capt? Really? - You certainly
had me fooled.


Well, that's apparently pretty easy to do!

Feel free to show us some empirical evidence that a Mac will not roll,
capsize, and kill anyone stupid enough to be in the conditions previously
described. Nope, didn't think you could.



Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm
one of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally
to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep
in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other
boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations
or shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I
thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe
described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such
as yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac
would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is
simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are
not supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of
hearsay, speculation, and personal bias.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
news
As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case.
Yes, I know so.

Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a
conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation.

Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as
Joe's boat.

From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much
about boats.

It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles
of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize
it, much less admit it.

Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I do know plenty about boats. Please submit some
evidence that you know plenty about boats, especially given your choice and
your contentions.


A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Once again, did I say that? Don't think so.


You don't know much about boats...


And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of
evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that
fact, much less admit it.
clearly, and I do think so.


Clearly, you're trying to change the subject.


Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one
of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally

Yes, this we know.

to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep
in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other
boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or
shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I
thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe

And, you thought wrong.

described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as
yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac
would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is
simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not
supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay,
speculation, and personal bias.

Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific
conditions, none of which include offshore.

I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a
friend's older Mac26.


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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
news
As I said. You're now claiming that the Mac is somehow a special case.
Yes, I know so.

Obviously so. The design of the Mac26M IS different from that of a
conventional boat with weighted keel and no positive floatation.


Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just as
Joe's boat.

And your evidence supporting that assertion
is................................................ .................?



From your last statement, it's pretty clear that you don't know much

about boats.

It's even more clear that you know nothing about the most basic principles
of evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to recognize
it, much less admit it.


Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I do know plenty about boats. Please submit some
evidence that you know plenty about boats, especially given your choice and
your contentions.

I've sailed boats in the 30ft to 40ft class (Valiant, Cal, Endeavor,
O'Day, Catalina, Beneteaux, Erickson, etc.) for some 50 years.




A dismasting in and of itself, doesn't cause a sinking.

Once again, did I say that? Don't think so.


You don't know much about boats...


And, as noted above, you know nothing about the basic principles of
evidence and logic. - You have none, yet you can't seem to understand that
fact, much less admit it.
clearly, and I do think so.



Clearly, you're trying to change the subject.


Capt., I didn't start this particular discussion thread, but since I'm one
of the few Mac owners on the ng, I feel some obligation occasionally


Yes, this we know.


to provide a degree of balance and rationality to such discussions. Keep
in mind that I didn't claim that the Mac would be preferable to other
boats for extended ocean crossings, or that it doesn't have limitations or
shortcomings. - I merely stated that, with it's floatation system, I
thought it would have remained afloat under the conditions Joe


And, you thought wrong.

And your proof supporting that particular assertion
is.........................?




described. The original note in this string (and subsequent ones such as
yours) simply assumed that negative, sarcastic comments about the Mac
would of course be accepted as the Gospel truth. What I have done is
simply to point out that most of such assertions about the Mac 26M are not
supported by evidence or proof, but instead consist largely of hearsay,
speculation, and personal bias.


Gospel or knot, the Mac is a bad choice except under some very specific
conditions, none of which include offshore.

Wrong again.


I have a personal bias based on my experience on many boats, including a
friend's older Mac26.


And how old was that Mac26 Gantz?

Jim

Jon,

Just passing thru and an missed a lot BUT this I Know. A sailboat that
loses it Mast becomes more stable, immediately. This has been proven
many times. Even laying a-hull the stability is improved.

The problem is getting rid of the Damn Mast before it punches a hole in
the Hull

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Jon,

Just passing thru and an missed a lot BUT this I Know. A sailboat that
loses it Mast becomes more stable, immediately. This has been proven
many times. Even laying a-hull the stability is improved.

The problem is getting rid of the Damn Mast before it punches a hole in
the Hull



You need to revise your knowledge. It's not true. See the other threads.

Hope all is well...

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

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 20:45:08 -0600, JimC
wrote:



Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
et...


Capt. JG wrote:



"JimC" wrote in message
m...

Quite a lot cut as I am interested in one specific statement

I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in heavy
seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the ocean
in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that shows
this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side in
ocean conditions? I have.-


Jim

Are you stating specifically that a sailing boat that loses its mast
is in more danger of capsizing then when the rig was in place?? I
would appreciate it if you could elaborate on this as it was always my
understanding that once the rig was either cut away or retrieved and
lashed on deck the boat rode no worse then it had with the rig in
place.

It was always my thought that once the rig was gone that stability of
the ballasted hull would become slightly better with no weight above
the deck line.

I emphasize that I have no interest in this discussion other then this
single point which is probably of interest to most cruising sailors.


Bruce-in-Bangkok
(correct email address for reply)