Jim, that's knot 'Joe'. It's an asshole pretending to be 'Joe'.
He's not even a sailor and isn't worthy to lick the **** off of
Joe's boots.

SBV


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Joe, are you still docked at the marina on Clear Lake?

Jim

Commodore Joe Redcloud© wrote:

On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:58:00 -0600, Jim Cate
wrote:



Those near LA sail and/or motor offshore to Catalina Island,
etc. (They have the option of motoring out in two hours
after work on a
Friday, then spending two days of sailing and exploring the
area, then
returning by sail or motor Sunday afternoon or Monday
morning.) - For
example, according to one recent report, there were more than
10 Macs
anchored at Catalina when the owner sailed there one weekend.



Good thinking to bring plenty of spares!


Commodore Joe Redcloud©

See what I mean?


"Commode Joe Redcloud©" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:39:18 -0500, "Scotty"

wrote:

Jim, that's knot 'Joe'. The Joe you are looking for is an
asshole
from El Lago, Texas. He's not even a sailor and isn't worthy
to
lick the **** off of this Joe's boots.

Scott B Vernon Born 1946
1982 CHESTNUT HILL RD
MOHNTON, PA (640) 866-7128


"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...
Joe, are you still docked at the marina on Clear Lake?

Jim


TMI!

Bwhahahahahahaha!


Commode Joe Redcloud©

Jim Cate wrote:
The M has a completely different hull, with deeper V

I'm sure that's what they told you.

Park the two side by side on their trailers and see if you
can spot any differences.

DSK

In article ,
Jim Cate wrote:
Try me.

Thanks, but no thanks.

Would you believe me if I told you that I know a major dealer of them
in this area and even he thinks they're crap... doubt it.

Shouldn't he consider some other kind of work? - There doesn't seem to
be a great deal of profit running a Mac dealership.

On the contrary. He makes tons of money from people like you! A true
capitalist.

Johnny, seems to me that, if the Macs are simply a pile of junk as you
keep saying, we would see thousands of them breaking apart in any winds

Well, it seems to you.

Particularly since the Macs have been one of the most popular lines ever
made, with over 40,000 of them sold, reports of failures should be all
over the place. I spend a lot of time on the Mac discussion groups, and

McDonalds makes billions of burgers, but I wouldn't want to eat them
on a regular basis.

Perhaps too much time...

I read lots of reports and sailing mags, and I don't remember seeing
accounts of any Macs that simply fell apart, or any on which the owners
or passengers were drowned, etc., other than the one in which a drunk
skipper rolled an overloaded Mac 26X with no ballast. As in any boat,

You're really obsessed with Macs breaking up...

So, it should be fairly easy for you to cite some statisticsbacking up
your ridiculous assertions. Could you do that for us, Johnny? - If you
aren't just blowing smoke, that is.

Assertions of what? They're junky, they look like it, they sail like
it. There are no statistics needed.
--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

In article ,
Jim Cate wrote:
The M has a completely different hull, with deeper V, and uses a narrow
dagger board instead of a pivotable keel. Because the keel doesn't
pivot back into the hull, there is no six-foot recess or pocket in the
hull for receiving the board, and no corresponding "hump" in the cabin
floor. The mast is several feet higher, and the main has a more narrow
profile. The hull has an additional layer of fiberglass. Additionally,
the boat includes several hundred pounds of fixed ballast, in addition
to the water ballast. There are a number of other changes to the cabin,
cockpit, and exterior.

Yep, and it's still a piece of junk.

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

DSK wrote:

Jim Cate wrote:

The M has a completely different hull, with deeper V


I'm sure that's what they told you.

Park the two side by side on their trailers and see if you can spot
any differences.

DSK


I have. - Our marina has a number of the 26Xs, and several of the 26Ms,
and I have compared them.

My note listed some eight differnces betweent the M and the X. - In
addition, there are changes in the standing rigging, and the rotating
mast. - In other words, at least ten differences. - You are apparently
claiming that they are all bogus Mac propoganda. Exactly which of the
ten do you claim wasn't changed?
Which of the ten, DK? And on what do you base your assertion? - And,
have YOU compared the two boats?

Jim

Jim Cate wrote:
My note listed some eight differnces betweent the M and the X. - In
addition, there are changes in the standing rigging, and the rotating
mast. - In other words, at least ten differences. - You are apparently
claiming that they are all bogus Mac propoganda.

Umm, no.

Just that the hulls are the same shape, no "deeper V", the
deck shape is the same, the rig is pretty much the same (why
does the "longer mast" not stick up any higher?), and that
they don't really sail very well compared to a "real"
boat... but hey, they don't have to! You can motor!


.... And on what do
you base your assertion? - And, have YOU compared the two boats?


Yep. And sailed them myself a few times. A couple of friends
have owned them and were determined to prove what great
boats they were, until the realization slowly crept over
them that they were not.

But they are a pretty cool water toy, if you don't mind the
cost.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

In article .com,
wrote:
The elitists here who feel that only "traditional" designs belong on
the water need to loosen their yachtie captains hats and get over the
Mac26 and realize that it works very well enabling the less affluent
among us to go sailing and to do far more sailing than those who mainly
sail from yacht club bar stools. In spite of their apocryphal stories
of Mac26 disasters they can never back up, I have read of many great
Mac26 trips including the entire ICW, the inside passage to Alaska,
Catalina, Bahamas. From what I can tell, the current Mac26 is built
better than the original Hunters and some Beneteaus. As far as safety
is concerned, it seems considerably safer than most power boats and a
strong case can be made for it being safer than many other sail boats.

I wouldn't know about elistists... and, while I like traditional
designs, I have no problem with people who want to sail on Macs or any
other boat. What I said was that they're fine for some conditions, but
not for others. This is true of all boats, but Jimmy gets all in a
lather when someone suggests that they're not great boats in
general. Sure, the newer ones are better than the older ones. Sure,
there are always people who do extraordinary things with equipment
that isn't really designed to do it. They might even be better than
the oringal Hunters, but that's not really saying to much is it? As to
being safer than other boats, I guess it depends on the other
boat. Care to give us some examples of other new boats that are less
safe than Mac?




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

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In article ,
Jim Cate wrote:


Try me.



Thanks, but no thanks.



Would you believe me if I told you that I know a major dealer of them
in this area and even he thinks they're crap... doubt it.


Shouldn't he consider some other kind of work? - There doesn't seem to
be a great deal of profit running a Mac dealership.



On the contrary. He makes tons of money from people like you! A true
capitalist.



Then he must be selling other boats in addition to the Macs. (Right?) I
don't see many Mac dealers making a big profit. - Most of them seem to
be in because they like sailing and like the Macs.



Johnny, seems to me that, if the Macs are simply a pile of junk as you
keep saying, we would see thousands of them breaking apart in any winds



Well, it seems to you.



What are you saying, Johnnny? That they don't fall apart or break up?
That even though you think the Macs are a pile of junk, they still just
keep on sailing? - You're not making much sense.




Particularly since the Macs have been one of the most popular lines ever
made, with over 40,000 of them sold, reports of failures should be all
over the place. I spend a lot of time on the Mac discussion groups, and



McDonalds makes billions of burgers, but I wouldn't want to eat them
on a regular basis.

Perhaps too much time...



You're missing the point again, Johnny. The fact that MacGregor sells
lots of boats wasn't mentioned as evidence that their boats are of
high quality (although they are). Instead, the point was that, with
that many boats out there, and with thousands of owners, passengers,
observers, reviewers, etc. aware of them, if they were inherently
dangerous, or if they fell apart or capsized, etc., (if they were just a
pile of junk, as you say), that fact would be well-known throughout the
sailing community. - So far, however, you can't come up with any
evidence or statistics to back up your ridiculous assertions. Kind of
embarrassing John?



I read lots of reports and sailing mags, and I don't remember seeing
accounts of any Macs that simply fell apart, or any on which the owners
or passengers were drowned, etc., other than the one in which a drunk
skipper rolled an overloaded Mac 26X with no ballast. As in any boat,



You're really obsessed with Macs breaking up...


You're obsessed with calling them a pile of junk. Could you possibly
come up with another term Johnny?




So, it should be fairly easy for you to cite some statisticsbacking up
your ridiculous assertions. Could you do that for us, Johnny? - If you
aren't just blowing smoke, that is.



Assertions of what? They're junky, they look like it, they sail like
it. There are no statistics needed.


If they were just a pile of junk, as you say, and if their rigging were
not built appropriately for the loads, they would be failing, capsizing,
and breaking up after a few months of use in moderate winds. - But they
aren't, and that's why you are having trouble backing up your ridiculous
statements. - Put up or shut up Johnny!

Jim

Jonathan Ganz wrote:

In article ,
Jim Cate wrote:


The M has a completely different hull, with deeper V, and uses a narrow
dagger board instead of a pivotable keel. Because the keel doesn't
pivot back into the hull, there is no six-foot recess or pocket in the
hull for receiving the board, and no corresponding "hump" in the cabin
floor. The mast is several feet higher, and the main has a more narrow
profile. The hull has an additional layer of fiberglass. Additionally,
the boat includes several hundred pounds of fixed ballast, in addition
to the water ballast. There are a number of other changes to the cabin,
cockpit, and exterior.



Yep, and it's still a piece of junk.



Have a nice day anyway Johnny.

Jim