Wilbur Hubbard wrote:
I decided today to buy a MacGregor 26M. I really didn't give it any thought,
I just felt like I'd buy one.

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

Jim

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

Jim


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

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

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

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

Jim



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

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



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

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

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

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

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...

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

Jim



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

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



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

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

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

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

Jim


Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll? If so, well
QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a Mac out in those
conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


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

Jim



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

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



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

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

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

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

Jim



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

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

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


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

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

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
.. .


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


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

Jim



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

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



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

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

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

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

Jim



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

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

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


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

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

Jim


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

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

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

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

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


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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Capt. JG wrote:



"JimC" wrote in message
...



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

Jim



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Jim



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

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

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

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


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

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

Jim



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

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


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

Did I say that? Don't think so.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

Jim

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:


"JimC" wrote in message
t...


Capt. JG wrote:



"JimC" wrote in message
...



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

Jim



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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Jim



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

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

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

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


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

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

Jim



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

Yes.

I have.

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


Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
support your assertions.

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

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

Did I say that? Don't think so.

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

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

Capt, this entire string revolves around slamming the Macs. - Check out
Neal's original post.


Jim

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC
wrote:

You also say
that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is
your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion?

His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is
not designed or built for off-shore conditions. Where is your
evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas? It's not
impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. Pick one up 30
feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. That will
give you a good idea where the weak spots are.

Wayne.B wrote:

On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:01:00 -0600, JimC
wrote:


You also say
that the Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is
your evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, supporting this assertion?


His assertion is based on common sense, and the fact that the boat is
not designed or built for off-shore conditions. Where is your
evidence that the boat will not break up in heavy seas?

I haven't heard of any ongoing problem with Macs breaking apart and
sinking in heavy seas. - Have you?

It's not impossible, plenty of other boats have met that fate. Pick one
up 30
feet into the air and drop it to the water a few times. That will
give you a good idea where the weak spots are.

I suppose that if someone had some evidence that Macs subjected to
heavy seas and/or severe stress have been breaking apart and sinking I
might reconsider my opinion. Meanwhile, it seems that neither you or the
Capt. have any evidence to back up your assertions. I do agree that
"it's not impossible." - I'm just not sure how I'm going to pick it up
30 feet in the air and drop it into the water several times.

Jim