Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#191
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message news:l8OdnbHUTe1kC4vVnZ2dnUVZ_uSdnZ2d@giganews. com... JimC wrote: I'm not saying that there might not be such a report out there somewhere, but so far no one on this ng has been able to produce it. Your move. I see no reports of flying pigs crashing to the ground, therefore pigs can fly. Are really that dense? Cheers Marty Wait.. right there. You missed it! Jon, there are four possibilities he 1) JimC is just playing devils advocate and is having fun being deliberately obtuse. 2) JimC has a serious mental deficiency and actually believes a Mac26X to be a fine sailing vessel suitable for competition in the TransPac. 3) JimC is in the employ of MacGregor, and or owns shares in the company. 4) Some combination of the above. Cheers Marty I think there's a #5... Macs are, in fact, the most seaworthy boats that are designed for the rigorous conditions one could encounter anywhere in the vast oceans. Not only be unsinkable, even by fools such as us, they are fast, look great, and are only sold to sailors who are the most deserving of them - highly skilled seafarers of which there are few. The reason that we believe they don't participate in competitions, such as the TransPac, is because of the evil media, who are in cahoots with the other manufacturers. Ganz, you're obviously loosing it. Have you considered getting professional help? jim |
#192
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
JimC wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message t... Again, despite the thousands of Mac 26's out there sailed in US and foreign waters, we have NO reports of Mac 26M's breaking up and sinking in ANY conditions. NONE! Have a nice day Salty. Jim Please prove this. I see no evidence of this in your post. What I said was that we have no reports of Mac 25M's breaking up and sinking. In any conditions. Unless I missed them, no such reports have been identified or posted on this newsgroup, Ganz. AFAiK, neither you or any of your Mac-bashing buddies have been able to find or post any of them. On the other hand, maybe I'm mistaken, and you DID post them. If so, kindly give me the date and time of your post(s). Thanks, Jim Anyone have a response to this note? Jim |
#193
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
JimC wrote:
Marty wrote: JimC wrote: If I had made such a statement, I might think about searching for such evidence. But as I have noted several times, I never posted anyting of the kind. Incidentally, I thought you had decided to abandon this discussion. - Was I wrong? In any event, I'm glad to see you back. Jim, you most certainly made such a statement, when you returned I couldn't resist. I am pleased to see you have no intention of trying to support such folly. Cheers Marty Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses or challenges to what you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to have said, or what your caracature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather than what I did say. As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac is suitable for extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In fact, I said just the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended crossings. Good Lord folks, this still going on? As for it being any type of "blue-water cruiser", here's what Roger MacGregor says about it in a Practical Sailor interview (http://www.practical-sailor.com/samp...t_Review.html: As for its seaworthiness, Roger MacGregor said, “The 26 was designed for typical small cruising boat use—inland waters and limited coastal sailing. It is too small to be a long-distance passagemaker. It won’t hold enough gear and supplies, and the long-term, day-after-day motion of a small, light sailboat can be tough on the crew. “There are thousands of these boats out there, and many have been caught in, and survived, some really extreme weather conditions, on both lakes and oceans. Like most small cruising sailboats, the 26 can handle high winds and nasty seas, but risk and discomfort levels increase dramatically in severe weather. To maximize fun and safety, most of our owners wisely keep a watchful eye on the weather and try to avoid severe conditions.” So...once again, the *designer* clearly states that it's built for light duty. What's the mystery? Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. With 10K pounds of coffee in it? Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine) in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his Mac-baching buddies. MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES, HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS. I'm not bashing Macs. They're fine for what they are designed for, i.e. "inland waters and limited coastal sailing". So are they designed for heavy seas and gale force winds - NO. "Might" they survive? Sure, but one can always assume that there is a high likelihood that a boat will fail, often catastrophically, when used *well* outside of its designed operating range. A simple matter of engineering, not speculation. Keith Hughes |
#194
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... Jon, there are four possibilities he 1) JimC is just playing devils advocate and is having fun being deliberately obtuse. 2) JimC has a serious mental deficiency and actually believes a Mac26X to be a fine sailing vessel suitable for competition in the TransPac. 3) JimC is in the employ of MacGregor, and or owns shares in the company. 4) Some combination of the above. Cheers Marty I think there's a #5... Macs are, in fact, the most seaworthy boats that are designed for the rigorous conditions one could encounter anywhere in the vast oceans. Not only be unsinkable, even by fools such as us, they are fast, look great, and are only sold to sailors who are the most deserving of them - highly skilled seafarers of which there are few. The reason that we believe they don't participate in competitions, such as the TransPac, is because of the evil media, who are in cahoots with the other manufacturers. Ganz, you're obviously loosing it. Have you considered getting professional help? jim You have no sense of humor... that's obvious. Are you really a twit or just playing one? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#195
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
news Anyone have a response to this note? Jim As for it being any type of "blue-water cruiser", here's what Roger MacGregor says about it in a Practical Sailor interview http://www.practical-sailor.com/samp...at_Review.html -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#196
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
jeff wrote: JimC wrote: jeff wrote: ... - Regarding accounts of ocean voyages, I have read of a number of them on various Mac discussion groups, although not many are true extended ocean crossings. Were any of them more than a day trip? Yes. Out of sight of land? Yes. Any Bermuda crossings? I believe so. What you "believe" is not the issue, its what you can actually prove, or at least provide a link for. For several years you've been making claims about the Mac, but you've never once backed them up with anything. Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac. They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. - My evidence for this is that I can see the floatation throughout the boat, and the fact that MacGregor's specs state the same. (Incidentally, if they made false or deceptive claims in their published specs, they would be subject to suits for deceptive trade practices, which entail treble damages and the possibility of punitive damages.) Further proof is the fact that incident you cite below, the boat didn't sink, and didn't fall apart. (I made no assertion that people couldn't be harmed on a Mac26 with a drunk skipper, who wasn't familiar with the boat, who ignored the most fundamental safety warnings given by MacGregor relative to using the water ballast except in particular, limited circumstances) maximum loads, positioning of passengers, whose drunk crew members were standing on deck holding onto the mast, and who gunned the boat to make a turn, etc., etc.) Come on, Jim, you're the one who always insists on some proof, now its your turn to ante up. Actually, Jeff, what I said originally was that I didn't consider the Mac 26 to be suitable for extended ocean crossings and wouldn't want to take mine out 200 miles. Since I already said that I don't consider the Mac to be suitable for extended crossings, I really don't see the need to defend it as a boat suitable for extended ocean crossings. I also said that, in the event that Joe was on a Mac 26 rather than Red Cloud, I thought that the boat would not break apart and sink, as did Red Cloud, apparently, because the Macs are built with positive floatation that will keep them afloat even if the hull is compromised, etc. You have absolutely no proof that a Mac would survive, or more to the point, that people on board would survive. Just because it has some foam, doesn't mean those on board are protected. Remember, I've already shown a case where two people drowned on a Mac. And hundreds of people drown each year while using boats that had foam flotation. One more time Marty. - I'll gladly back up the statements I actually made. But not those you are trying to put into my mouth. As previously noted: Marty, like Jeff and Ganz, you seem to love posting responses to what you THINK I said, or what you would LIKED for me to have said, or what your caricature of Mac owners WOULD have said, rather than what I actually did say. Regarding the positive floatation, as noted above, the Mac specs state that the boat, with full crew and motor, will continue to float even if the hull is compromised. Your assertion that this doesn't apply if the boat is in heavy weather conditions is illogical and is not supported by any evidence. (Think about what you are inferring. You seem to think that the boat will be broken into so many pieces that the foam floatation will all come loose, float out of the boat, leaving the boat and it's crew to sink. - SIMPLY RIDICULOUS! As previously noted, I have not stated that the Mac is suitable for extensive blue water sailing or extended crossings. In fact, I said just the opposite, that it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended crossings. Note also that I didn't say that they are routinely sailed offshore in difficult conditions. - I merely stated that if Joe had been on a Mac26, with its positive floatation, I thought his boat would have stayed afloat, permitting him to recover it rather than having it sink to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico. Please note that it wasn't me who initiated the assertions that the Mac would break up and sink (or roll over and over like a washing machine) in heavy weather conditions. - It was Ganz, and a few of his Mac-bashing buddies. MY ASSERTION WAS THAT NEITHER GANZ, OR ANY OF HIS MAC-BASHING BUDDIES, HAVE PROVIDED ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE MAC WOULD BREAK UP AND SINK IN HEAVY WEATHER CONDITIONS. I stand by and will continue to support THAT assertion. However, don't put words in my mouth and ask me to support assertions you wish I had made, or thought I had made, but didn't. My point is that, so far, we don't see any reports of any tendencies of the boats to break up or sink. True, but meaningless unless you can show that they have actually survived true heavy weather. It's not meaningless in view of the fact that there are multiple thousands of them, being sailed by thousands of owners in various waters around the world. That's an incredibly stupid statement, even for you. Just because there are thousands of them doesn't mean any of them ever left the harbor. So is this what they teach you in lawyer school - to make ludicrous claims claims and hope the jury is stupid? Think for a moment about what You are saying Marty. The thousands of Mac 26s owners simply buy their boats and never take them out? Never get them out of the harbor? And I should have to provide proof that they actually do take them out? - Again, UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS. I have seen reports of owners sailing them off Australia, in the Mediterranean, off the coast of England, off the shore of California (often to Catalina Is.), etc. And yet, you've never been able to post a link here. If I did, would you be satisfied? Or would you dig through all the reports trying to discredit them any way you could? I'm not basing my statements on any listing of specific sailings; rather, I'm saying that it is simply preposterous for you or your buddies to say that, with multiple thousands of Macs out there, there weren't incidents of skippers getting into severe, difficult situations. (And again, in any waters, not necessarily extended, blue-water voyages.) But remember that they may be subject to severe conditions no matter where they are sailed. My point is that with this many boats out there, over many years, it is obviously likely that some will have been subject to severe and unexpected conditions of various kinds. Again with the gross stupidity. Do you really think anyone is buying this? Its like claiming that with so many UFO reports at least one must be real. Have you been probed lately? Wrong again Marty. Because there are thousands of Macs out there, it would be incredible to believe that they haven't been subject to severe or difficult conditions of various kinds. - Remember that it was Ganz and others who made the assertions that they would break up in heavy conditions. I'm inclined to believe that all that would be found is an unidentifiable foam block. The only question is how bad would it have to be? A number of "unsinkable" boats have been lost. Most multihulls have positive flotation, though a number have eventually sunk, fortunately long after the crew has been rescued. You're entitled to your own (unsupported) opinion, Marty, even if it's wrong. (By contrast, I always said that they weren't suitable for extended Blue Water crossings.) But you did claim they would survive rather severe conditions. What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it wouldn't have sunk. Therefore, in view of the fact that it was Ganz and his buddies that made the assertions that they would break up in heavy weather, seems like it would be his responsibility to support that particular assertions. There have been plenty of cases of much stronger boats breaking up. And there have been plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from "average nasty" conditions. And a case of flooding from a rollover. Really, Marty? So far I haven't seen the reports of "plenty of cases of Macs suffering damage from average nasty conditions." Where are those reports, Marty? Did I miss that particular post? Here's what he actually posted: "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." Again, if he is going to disparage my boat, equating it to a washing machine and asserting that no one on it would survive, then he should be the one to provide the evidence supporting his assertions. Lots of survivors have described their boats, especially smaller, lighter boats, as been being like a washing machine. If you knew anything about heavy weather you would appreciate that. The only question is how much pounding could your boat take before a hatch falls off and the boat floods. ... Pure speculation, Marty. Interesting writing, however. It would make a good fiction article. And BTW, when you got your boat you said you intended to take it offshore. Perhaps I missed your accounts of these ventures, can you repost them? I have a number of responsibilities and haven't had time to take the boat down to the Gulf. However, I intend to this Summer. - Ask me again this Fall. Sure thing. But you've said this every year. I'll post my report this Fall. Ok? Jim |
#197
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
cavelamb himself wrote: JimC wrote: Ganz, are you intentionally or maliciously distorting the points made in my notes, or are you just stupid? Jim Hold up, Jim. You seem to be expecting rational behavior and fair treatment from the creatures inhabiting this list. They, on the other hand, are having fun making sport of you via your boat. Drop it and go on and enjoy sailing. Maybe the first cartoon here will help... http://www.home.earthlink.net/~cavelamb/proof.htm Richard Richard, yours is one of the few rational responses posted so far in this string. As you may have noted, I don't spend a lot of time in discussions of the Macs on alt.sailing.asa. However, I sometimes think that the MacBashers have been getting something of a free ride. - Few Mac owners seem to be willing to stick up for their boats on this ng, and it doesn't seem right that a boat as popular, versatile, and fun to sail as the Mac26 shouldn't be supported by at least some of their owners. Also, I sense that it's something of a shock to some of the MacBashers when they get their asses kicked. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't continue doing it. Jim |
#198
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
.. . Here are some of the claims I have made about the Mac. They have positive floatation that will keep the boat afloat. Which has nothing to do with whether or not the boat will sink... just that it's got floatation. As Jeff pointed out, even "unsinkable" boat do sink. who gunned the boat to make a turn... Which means that it doesn't react well to radical handling, yet other sailboats won't do what happened to this boat when the skipper, drunk or not, "guns" the engine. What I said was that I thought that if Joe's boat were a Mac26M, it wouldn't have sunk. With 10,000 lbs of lead in it's hold, since I don't think you can get 10K of coffee in it? Right. I'll post my report this Fall. Ok? If you're going offshore in a storm, get plenty of insurance! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#199
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 15:00:32 -0600, JimC wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Huh? Either they're appropriate to the size of a 26 ft boat or not that should go offshore. They're no appropriate on so many levels that I would run out of bandwidth trying to post them. It's deficient rigging. I've seen it. Find your own examples. I'm not interested in doing your homework for you. In other words, you simply don't have a rational response and can't come up one. Is that about the size of it Ganz? Jim The size of it is that you are unable to substantiate your own claims and want me to do your work for you... sorry, not my job. What "claims" are you talking about Ganz? Have I made any "claims" that the Mac26M is a good boat for extended offshore cruising? Have I made any "claims" that it is a good boat for ocean crossings? Have I made any "claims" that I would want to take it offshore for extended blue water cruising? (Helpful hint: Not. - Just the opposite. In fact, I have stated in several posts that it wouldn't be good choice for extended crossings or the like.) Neal, I think it would be helpful if you took the time to actually read my notes before you post any more of those indignant, sarcastic, snooty replies. Jim Where does the silly term "extended off shore cruising" come from? The Mac26M is unfit for many conditions found regularly on a day sail near shore. Certainly offshore cruising around here... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
#200
posted to rec.boats.cruising,alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
I decided
wrote in message
... On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:11:29 GMT, JimC wrote: Richard, yours is one of the few rational responses posted so far in this string. As you may have noted, I don't spend a lot of time in discussions of the Macs on alt.sailing.asa. However, I sometimes think that the MacBashers have been getting something of a free ride. - Few Mac owners seem to be willing to stick up for their boats on this ng, and it doesn't seem right that a boat as popular, versatile, and fun to sail as the Mac26 shouldn't be supported by at least some of their owners. Also, I sense that it's something of a shock to some of the MacBashers when they get their asses kicked. If I didn't enjoy it, I wouldn't continue doing it. Jim Anybody participating in this thread feel that Jim kicked their ass, or anybody else's? Just curious... No, but my side hurts from laughing... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
I have decided to become.......... | General | |||
Decided on Dry Tortugas | Cruising | |||
Decided on Dry Tortugas | General | |||
Decided on Dry Tortugas | General |