|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I really doubt than any even half-way rational skipper would consider taking a Mac offshore under such conditions (with the boat overloaded, with several adults standing on the deck, with the skipper and half the guests drunk, and with the ballast tank empty). It's an anomaly that doesn't really relate to the present discussion. Such conditions? Calm waters? You are again evading the substance of my post, Ganz. "Calm waters" was only one factor out of a number of more critical ones, including: drunk skipper, negligent owner, drunk guests, ignorant skipper who wasn't familiar with the boat, empty ballast tank (apparently not checked by either the skipper or the owner), motoring at night under varying lighting (fireworks) boat overloaded, boat top heavy with several drunk adults standing on the deck, some apparently holding on to the mast, and infants left in the cabin. Regarding the "calm waters" issue, apparently the skipper was trying to maneuver around other boats also in the area to watch the fireworks. In any event, he turned the boat at excessive speed under the conditions. Ganz, are you intentionally or maliciously distorting the points made in my notes, or are you just stupid? Jim |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message news:YtmdnZGvK50d65fVnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews. com... JimC wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... snipping Zzzzzz... this thread is dead Jim... LOL The string is dead? Well, some of us have interests and responsibilities beyond participating in such a discussion. Also, I spent the afternoon this Saturday sailing my boat, something I don't seem often to see with respect to you and your buddies posting in this string. - It's strange, but you and most of your anti-Mac buddies seem to get their jollies from bashing us Mac sailors, whereas we Mac sailors get pleasure from sailing our Macs. But I'll get back to you, and also to your Mac-bashing buddies. That's a promise. Getting a bit paranoid there Jim. Nobody was bashing Macs, just bashing the idea that they were sufficiently seaworthy as to be taken off shore and brave open ocean storms. Now go take a pill and relax, Macs have their place, as do canoes and paddle boats. Cheers Marty Jim That's right Marty... in fact, as the chief Mac-basher (apparently) I said near those exact words, but Jim doesn't want to hear... Ganz, I think what you said was: 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. Of course, you had no evidence whatsoever to back up those ridiculous assertions. Incidentally, I never thought of my Mac as a washing machine, but maybe I should look into it. Jim Take it offshore and encounter some weather. Then, report back to us. Gee Ganz, if that would turn my boat into a washing machine, I don't think so. Jim |
I decided
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 |
I decided
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 -- (remove the X to email) Now just why the HELL do I have to press 1 for English? John Wayne |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
.. . Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I think your problem is that you are judging the rigging and hardware of the Mac on the basis of what's required with a much heavier boat. The requirements simply aren't the same for a small, 4,000 lb. boat. See also my note above concerning forming a bridle for accommodating the sea anchor. Jim No. He's judging it on the basis of what's a decent rig. A "decent rig" for a 69-foot Swan, or a 40-ft Valiant or a 39-ft O'Day, is not the same thing as a "decent rig" for a 26-ft boat displacing 4,000 pounds. Jim I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal cruising. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
. .. Read my note Ganz. What I said was that the Mac can be quickly and easily transported by the owner with a pickup or SUV Which has nothing to do with actual sailing. I prefer to actually sail to places not put my boat on truck. Can you sail 1500 miles in one weekend Ganz? I would sure like to see that. - Let me know when you are about to move out. No. Neither can you. You can drive there in a day if you floor it. Storage and maintenance fees can be substantially less... I can leave the boat in a shallow slip that wouldn't be suitable for a conventional boat Well, you got me there. It's not a conventional boat. It might be a coastal cruiser a couple of months a year, but I assure you it's not a coastal cruiser out here 95% of the time, unless you count foundering on rocks as coastal cruising. Don't know where "out here" is Ganz.- Maybe you could be a little more specific. But in any event, the Mac is maneuverable and can be motored or sailed around rocks and in shallow waters most fixed-keel boats couldn't manage. SF bay and outside in the Pacific. Please don't ask me to send you a google map link. What's your point Ganz? That the boat SHOULDN'T have such safety measures?- How long would YOUR boat stay afloat if it's hull were substantially compromised? With a 6-inch puncture, for example? I stay off the rocks. I know where and when is appropriate to my craft. So, what you're saying is that you're so paranoid of sinking, you buy a piece of junk that just won't sink... 1 hole or 20. Sounds like packing peanuts. Mine has three reefing points on the main, and a roller furling jib. I seldom have problems keeping the boat under control. Out here, you'll need all three reefs all the time. Well, you got me there... cheap compared to used boats of higher quality. Not necessarily "cheap," (but possible.... glad you admit it) Could I tow your Sabre with my Mercury Marquis Ganz? How about a Ford pickup? Why would I want to try??? I prefer to sail. Ganz, where do you get an emphasis on trailoring from the above paragraph? self-serving crap deleted In the last several paragraphs. Please feel free to repost them if it turns you on. Actually, I do watch the wake and watch to see that I don't interfere with other boats. Obviously, the speed and, when under sail, the set of the sails have to be appropriate for the conditions. Suggestion... look where you're going, leave the engine off. LOL more self-serving bs removed Ah, the personal attack... and I only called you foolish for thinking you could take your boat offshore.. I must be losing it. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
. .. 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. We (those posting on alt.sailing.asa) have so far been unable to provide ANY reports of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions. If you think this statement is incorrect in any respect, please identify the source you think contradicts it. Or, if you have other sources that would contradict it, post those as well (or instead). 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. Jim I guess you didn't like Jeff's post. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
.. . Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I really doubt than any even half-way rational skipper would consider taking a Mac offshore under such conditions (with the boat overloaded, with several adults standing on the deck, with the skipper and half the guests drunk, and with the ballast tank empty). It's an anomaly that doesn't really relate to the present discussion. Such conditions? Calm waters? You are again evading the substance of my post, Ganz. "Calm waters" was only one factor out of a number of more critical ones, including: drunk skipper, negligent owner, drunk guests, ignorant skipper who wasn't familiar with the boat, empty ballast tank (apparently not checked by either the skipper or the owner), motoring at night under varying lighting (fireworks) boat overloaded, boat top heavy with several drunk adults standing on the deck, some apparently holding on to the mast, and infants left in the cabin. Regarding the "calm waters" issue, apparently the skipper was trying to maneuver around other boats also in the area to watch the fireworks. In any event, he turned the boat at excessive speed under the conditions. Ganz, are you intentionally or maliciously distorting the points made in my notes, or are you just stupid? Jim I must be stupid to believe you take yourself so seriously. You're the best troll ever!! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
.. . Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message news:YtmdnZGvK50d65fVnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@giganews .com... JimC wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message m... snipping Zzzzzz... this thread is dead Jim... LOL The string is dead? Well, some of us have interests and responsibilities beyond participating in such a discussion. Also, I spent the afternoon this Saturday sailing my boat, something I don't seem often to see with respect to you and your buddies posting in this string. - It's strange, but you and most of your anti-Mac buddies seem to get their jollies from bashing us Mac sailors, whereas we Mac sailors get pleasure from sailing our Macs. But I'll get back to you, and also to your Mac-bashing buddies. That's a promise. Getting a bit paranoid there Jim. Nobody was bashing Macs, just bashing the idea that they were sufficiently seaworthy as to be taken off shore and brave open ocean storms. Now go take a pill and relax, Macs have their place, as do canoes and paddle boats. Cheers Marty Jim That's right Marty... in fact, as the chief Mac-basher (apparently) I said near those exact words, but Jim doesn't want to hear... Ganz, I think what you said was: 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. Of course, you had no evidence whatsoever to back up those ridiculous assertions. Incidentally, I never thought of my Mac as a washing machine, but maybe I should look into it. Jim Take it offshore and encounter some weather. Then, report back to us. Gee Ganz, if that would turn my boat into a washing machine, I don't think so. Jim Clearly. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
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 |
I decided
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 |
I decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... 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! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote:
"Marty" wrote in message ... 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 decided
"Marty" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... 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. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
Capt. JG wrote:
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. Thanks Jon, I hadn't considered that possibility. Damn sporting of those Mac owners not to put us mere mortals to shame by thrashing us in such races. Cheers Marty |
I decided
"Martin Baxter" wrote in message
... Capt. JG wrote: 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. Thanks Jon, I hadn't considered that possibility. Damn sporting of those Mac owners not to put us mere mortals to shame by thrashing us in such races. Cheers Marty They have our best interest in mind at all times.. especially when zooming back to port in case there's wind a'comin. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
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. 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. .... 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? 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. 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? - 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. (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. 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. 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. .... 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 decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .. . Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message ... I think your problem is that you are judging the rigging and hardware of the Mac on the basis of what's required with a much heavier boat. The requirements simply aren't the same for a small, 4,000 lb. boat. See also my note above concerning forming a bridle for accommodating the sea anchor. Jim No. He's judging it on the basis of what's a decent rig. A "decent rig" for a 69-foot Swan, or a 40-ft Valiant or a 39-ft O'Day, is not the same thing as a "decent rig" for a 26-ft boat displacing 4,000 pounds. Jim I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal cruising. Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre. As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more of your obviously biased personal opinions. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... I agree! However, the rigs for Mac26s, which I've seen, are not adequate for anything other than light air. I have a Sabre 30, with a displacement of about twice that. The standing rigging is substantial... more than what would normally be required... why... because it's designed for real coastal cruising. Good for you Ganz. Hope you continue to enjoy sailing your Sabre. I shall. Thanks. I have no doubt that you enjoy sailing your Mac. That, of course, isn't the issue being discussed, since I'm pretty sure there are people out there who enjoy sailing on cruise liners. I doubt they're designed for small inland lakes, but I'm sure you can find someone who disagrees with that also. As to whether or not the Mac26M rigging is adequate FOR THE MAC 26M for coastal cruising, it would of course be more relevant if you could post the results of some scientifically based evaluations, involving actual tests of the MAC26M rigging under sail, instead of merely posting more of your obviously biased personal opinions. Jim You're right. I biased when it comes to safety. I've only been sailing for 40 years, so I guess I'll just have to rely on my experience with sailboats of various sizes and qualities. But, feel free to post some example of Macs surviving storm conditions. So far, all we've seen are your obviously biased personal assurances that everything will just be fine. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
|
I decided
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 |
I decided
jeff wrote: JimC wrote: Ganz, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15 Macs breaking up and sinking. Under any conditions. - Could you do that for us Ganz? Jim, I would be satisfied if you could provide evidence of just 10 or 15 Macs actually venturing out in conditions that might cause other boats to break up and sink. - Could you do that for us Jim? Ok, we'll settle for 5. How about just 2? Jeff, like Ganz, you seem to love posting supercilious responses 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. 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-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 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. Jim |
I decided
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. 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-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 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. Have a nice day Marty. Jim |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... 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 Please don't refer to me as "Neal." That's truly insulting! I think you're starting to get really frazzled. You now claim that the Mac wouldn't be a good choice for crossings, so that makes one wonder why, given what a "great" boat it's supposed be. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
t... 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. Key phrase "I thought." You done thunked wrong. 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. It's a vast Mac-bashing conspiracy! Alert the media. Please produce some evidence that it wouldn't roll over and over creating the effect of being in a washing machine if you were below decks. 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. Please say it a bit louder. We can't HEAR YOU! -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
I decided
|
I decided
Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message . .. Capt. JG wrote: "JimC" wrote in message .net... 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. We (those posting on alt.sailing.asa) have so far been unable to provide ANY reports of Mac26M's breaking up and sinking under ANY conditions. If you think this statement is incorrect in any respect, please identify the source you think contradicts it. Or, if you have other sources that would contradict it, post those as well (or instead). 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. Jim I guess you didn't like Jeff's post. Here's my response to Jeff: Jeff, like 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 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. 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-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 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. Jim |
I decided
Marty wrote: 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 Cute, Marty. Of course, you are evading the points made in my previous responses as to what I DID and DID NOT say. - See below: Jeff, 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 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. 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-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 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. Jim |
I decided
Marty wrote: Capt. JG wrote: "Marty" wrote in message ... 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 Actually, JimC is responding to every rational (or even arguably rational) note posted by any and all Mac-Bashers on the newsgroup. - Come one, come all, and I'll provide a response. (Except for those in bad taste, and obviously sicko remarks such as those recently posted by Ganz. - He's obviously loosing it.) What JimC is NOT going to do is post responses to Mac-Bashers asking him to defend positions that he doesn't hold, or statements he didn't make. Jim |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
I decided
"JimC" wrote in message
... 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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:04 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com