JimC wrote:
keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.

Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:
keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.

Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty


Uh oh... I'm vacuous.. or at least the company I keep is...

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

Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on
the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and
sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of
stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to
some 15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it
does get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for
extensive research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get
to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive
research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim


Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's
about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them,
and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even
great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who
has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in
particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true
offshore-capable boat.

I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions
that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb
enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly.

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

Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:


JimC wrote:


keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does get
to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for extensive
research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim



Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do. It's
about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of them,
and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps even
great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to anyone who
has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing rigging in
particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't comparable to a true
offshore-capable boat.

Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best
choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in
heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage
capacity normally required for such crossings. However, you are
incorrect when you compare their standing rigging to that of heavier,
larger, offshore boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming
that the rigging used in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons,
with heavy, deep keels) should also be required for the Macs (26 feet,
without heavy deep keel, and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded
with crew, motor, ballast, etc.). In other words, you are assuming that
because heavy rigging is used on the ocean-going boats with which you
are familiar, the Macs' lighter rigging, designed for the substantially
smaller and lighter boat, is deficient. You are inferring that they are
equivalent, but they're obviously not.

But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs'
rigging failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew,
I'll be interested in seeing your evidence.

Jim



I suspect that you're not dumb enough to take your boat out in conditions
that Joe and a few others here have taken their boats. If you are dumb
enough, I hope you survive to put us all down properly.

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:
"JimC" wrote in message
...


Marty wrote:


JimC wrote:


keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does
get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for
extensive research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim



Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do.
It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of
them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps
even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to
anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing
rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't
comparable to a true offshore-capable boat.

Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best
choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in
heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity
normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you
compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore
boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used
in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels)
should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel,
and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast,
etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used
on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter
rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is
deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're
obviously not.

But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging
failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be
interested in seeing your evidence.

Jim


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.

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

Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
...


Capt. JG wrote:

"JimC" wrote in message
. ..


Marty wrote:



JimC wrote:



keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed, do you really
think they have such a propensity? Seems to me that since that was what
was claimed, we should expect some proof or evidence of some sort from
Ganz and his buddies. If Ganz would just post ten or so accounts of such
Mac "sinkings," then I'll do my best to research the issue further. For
the time being, though, it should be apparent that I'm responding to some
15 or so Mac-bashers simultaneously (not really difficult, but it does
get to be time-consuming), so I don't have lots of free time for
extensive research.

In any event, have a nice evening Marty.

Jim



Jim, Jim... it's not about bashing Macs, which is certainly easy to do.
It's about the choices one makes. For some people, I'm sure you're one of
them, and for some sailing locals and conditions, they're fine, perhaps
even great. But, they're not for offshore, which should be obvious to
anyone who has taken a look at the boat in general and the standing
rigging in particular. Even you must admit that the rigging isn't
comparable to a true offshore-capable boat.

Ganz, you are partially correct. I agree that the Macs aren't the best
choice for extended offshore crossings. - They can be uncomfortable in
heavy weather, and they obviously don't have the size and storage capacity
normally required for such crossings. However, you are incorrect when you
compare their standing rigging to that of heavier, larger, offshore
boats. - Your error is that you seem to be assuming that the rigging used
in such large, heavy boats (e.g., 10 - 30 tons, with heavy, deep keels)
should also be required for the Macs (26 feet, without heavy deep keel,
and displacing only about 4,000 lbs. loaded with crew, motor, ballast,
etc.). In other words, you are assuming that because heavy rigging is used
on the ocean-going boats with which you are familiar, the Macs' lighter
rigging, designed for the substantially smaller and lighter boat, is
deficient. You are inferring that they are equivalent, but they're
obviously not.

But, once again, if you can provide 10 or 15 examples of the Macs' rigging
failing in heavy weather, with resulting loss of boat or crew, I'll be
interested in seeing your evidence.

Jim



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

"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

JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on
the Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and
sinking, in heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of
stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving
such conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try
it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed,


Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up?

Cheers
Marty

"Marty" wrote in message
...
JimC wrote:


Marty wrote:

JimC wrote:

keep that tendency a secret. - Yet so far, no one (on this ng or on the
Mac owners ng) has even heard of ANY Mac26 breaking up and sinking, in
heavy weather conditions, collisions, or other forms of stress.


Nor has anyone posted any credible evidence of a Mac26m/x surviving such
conditions. Perhaps because no one has been stupid enough to try it.

Cheers
Marty

Marty, in view of the fact that no one, on this board or elsewhere, has
posted any accounts of any of the thousands of Mac 26Ms breaking up and
sinking under any conditions, as was initially claimed,


Whoa, stop! Who claimed that "thousands of Mac26Ms" broke up?

Cheers
Marty


I did, apparently! LOL Maybe there's a meta message here from Jim....

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