Capt. JG wrote:

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

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


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

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



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

about boats.

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


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

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




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

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


You don't know much about boats...


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



Clearly, you're trying to change the subject.


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


Yes, this we know.


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


And, you thought wrong.

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




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


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

Wrong again.


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


And how old was that Mac26 Gantz?

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..
Yes, and it would be destroyed and be just as uninhabitable before, just
as Joe's boat.

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

Ummm... it was abandoned?

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

Did you learn anything?

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

Key phrase: one of the few.

And, you thought wrong.

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

Common knowledge and experience. And, your counter supporting proof is....?

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

Wrong again.

And, that's why it's chosen as an offshore passagemaker the world over. Got
it.


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


And how old was that Mac26 Gantz?

Older that yours, better reenforced for the demanding conditions where he
sails it.

Last name is Ganz, btw.


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