JimC wrote:


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:

[snipped obfuscation]


How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion?


You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would
have been fine, and remained afloat, you then went on to imply that a
Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other
larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done. You have
defended the strength of the rigging on a Mac and again by implication
suggested that it's perfectly adequate for surviving major storms offshore.

Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not
suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings", that's a good start.

Repeatedly chanting the mantra "MAC-BASHING BUDDIES", when no one is
bashing the Mac, does not constitute a valid argument. Most of us are in
fact saying that the Mac is fine if you use it for what it was intended
to be used for. Too suggest that a Mac is a fine sailing vessel, with
the capability to survive severe weather off shore, is patently
ridiculous and simply indefensible.

Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no
case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute
proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in
ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners.

To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for
the results of a test that has yet to be conducted.

Cheers
Marty

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:

[snipped obfuscation]


Martin Baxter wrote:
How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion?

You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would
have been fine, and remained afloat,

But ignoring the point without the ability to carry 5 tons of cargo,
there would have been zero point in taking a Mac26X~M on such a voyage
in the first place.


... you then went on to imply that a
Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other
larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done.

Got that right.
JimC isn't so much arguing the merits of the Mac26X~M as he is
delivering a sermon to us heathens. You gotta BELIEVE!!




Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not
suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings", that's a good start.


I think church may be out, JimC seems to have left the pulpit.
"Suitable for coastal sailing" is a bit of an exaggeration, much less
offshore & ocean crossing. I've seen the things struggling... and
having pieces break off... in average coastal/sheltered conditions,
say 15 knot winds and 3 foot seas.

One reason why MacGregor Co. upgraded the original Mac26X to the "new
improved" 26M is that they suffered almost universal steering failure,
the helm was the cheapest & smallest motorboat unit available and no
part of the steering was built to handle normal sailing loads.



Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no
case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute
proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in
ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners.


Just because they bought a Mac26 doesn't mean they are stupid... just
that they are easily conned... and as JimC shows, the true faithful
would rather preach endlessly to us unwashed sinners than actually go
out sailing in real wind.

To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for
the results of a test that has yet to be conducted.


Well, one can ask all one wants ... it's what one genuinely expects to
receive that determines whether or not one is an imbecile

DSK

wrote:

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:

[snipped obfuscation]



Martin Baxter wrote:

How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion?

You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would
have been fine, and remained afloat,

Nope. Never stated or inferred that he would have been "fine."


But ignoring the point without the ability to carry 5 tons of cargo,
there would have been zero point in taking a Mac26X~M on such a voyage
in the first place.


Actually, he didn't do a very good job of carrying the cargo on Red
Cloud either. I suppose that there may have been some ocean creatures
that got to enjoy some of his coffee.


... you then went on to imply that a
Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other
larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done.


Got that right.
JimC isn't so much arguing the merits of the Mac26X~M as he is
delivering a sermon to us heathens. You gotta BELIEVE!!

Nope. I'm simply pointing out all the unsupported assertions that have
been used to to "prove" the various anti-Mac positions. Follow the
unsupported assertions with some sarcasm and some "ha ha ha"s, and you
have a slam dunk that gets you some atta-boys from your fellow MacBashers.


Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not
suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings", that's a good start.

Actually, I never said it was a blue water boat in the first place. Not
so "mysterious" at all.


I think church may be out, JimC seems to have left the pulpit.
"Suitable for coastal sailing" is a bit of an exaggeration, much less
offshore & ocean crossing. I've seen the things struggling... and
having pieces break off... in average coastal/sheltered conditions,
say 15 knot winds and 3 foot seas.

But they didn't sink, did they?

One reason why MacGregor Co. upgraded the original Mac26X to the "new
improved" 26M is that they suffered almost universal steering failure,
the helm was the cheapest & smallest motorboat unit available and no
part of the steering was built to handle normal sailing loads.

"Universal failures?" - Gross exaggeration.


Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no
case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute
proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in
ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners.


You seem to forget that the assertions (other than my assertion that I
thought a Mac 26 would have stayed afloat) weren't made by me at all.
The assertions, for example,those about the Macs coming apart and
rolling over and over like a washing machine, were made by Ganz and a
few others. All I have done is to point out to those making such
assertions that they have provided little if any supporting evidence.



Just because they bought a Mac26 doesn't mean they are stupid... just
that they are easily conned... and as JimC shows, the true faithful
would rather preach endlessly to us unwashed sinners than actually go
out sailing in real wind.



Not at all. I'm all in favor of ng participants getting their boats out
as often as possible.


To put in terms that even an imbecile can understand; you can't ask for
the results of a test that has yet to be conducted.


= On the other hand, one can ask those making wild and totally
unsupported assertions to back up their various assertions. It's a quite
rational and appropriate request.

Incidentally, it's becoming quite evident that you and others are
becoming increasingly frustrated and disturbed that this discussion is
still in progress, and that you haven't been able to put me down. But
that's your problem, not mine. -Deal with it.


Jim

Martin Baxter wrote:
JimC wrote:



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:


[snipped obfuscation]

(Important deleted material returned)


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



How many times are you trot out the same lame evasion?

As often as I am accused of saying things that I didn't say.



You most certainly said that if Joe had been in a Mac, the Mac would
have been fine,

Nope.

and remained afloat, you then went on to imply that a
Mac, apparently with Devine intervention would not roll, as many other
larger boats, designed with such conditions in mind have done.

What I said was that no one had provided any evidence that a Mac 26M,
with a storm anchor deployed, would roll over and over continuously, as
was stated by Ganz.

You have
defended the strength of the rigging on a Mac and again by implication
suggested that it's perfectly adequate for surviving major storms offshore.

Nope. I said that no one had provided any evidenc that it would fail,
under the conditions discussed regarding Red Cloud.

Mysteriously you are now suggesting that the boat is in fact, not
suitable for survival, "it isn't a blue water boat suited for extended
crossings", that's a good start.

I stated at the outset that I wouldn't want to take the boat offshore as
did Joe, and that I wouldn't recommend anyone else do so. This isn't a
"mysterious" recent insertion, as you seem to suggest.


Repeatedly chanting the mantra "MAC-BASHING BUDDIES", when no one is
bashing the Mac,

Really? That's news to me.


does not constitute a valid argument. Most of us are in
fact saying that the Mac is fine if you use it for what it was intended
to be used for. Too suggest that a Mac is a fine sailing vessel, with
the capability to survive severe weather off shore, is patently
ridiculous and simply indefensible.

Once more, I never said that the Mac was a suitable vessel to take
offshore in severe weather. (How many times do I have to repeat myself?)
I said that if Joe had been in a Mac 26M, I thought his boat would have
remained afloat.


Further asking for evidence of a breakup in such conditions, when no
case of a Mac actually being used in such conditions does not constitute
proof of ability to survive. That we have no evidence of Macs sailing in
ocean storms is perhaps testimony the better judgement of Mac owners.


Here's some evidence that should be convincing (certainly more evidence
than has been posted by Ganz, Jeff, and their buddies).


So far, no one on this ng has posted any accounts or evidence of ANY Mac
26 (X or M models) sinking under ANY circumstances. That in itself is
pretty convincing evidence that the floatation is effective to keep the
boat afloat in a variety of difficult environments and situations.

Secondly, I didn't claim that the Macs would never sink under any
circumstances. My statement was in reference to Joe's situation.

Third, there are some interesting legal principles involved. The current
MacGregor website makes the following statements about the Mac 26M: "The
MacGregor 26 has built-in solid foam floatation to keep it afloat in the
event of damage. It won't sail fast when flooded like this, but
it beats swimming. Most competing boats do not offer this essential
safety protection, and their heavy keels can pull them straight to the
bottom. Don't get a boat without solid flotation!"
Additionally, it includes a photograph of a boat partially sunk but
still afloat and supporting five adult men standing on its cabin, with
the following comment: "We drilled a hole in the bottom of
the boat and let it fill. The boat has built-in solid foam flotation to
keep it afloat in the event of damage."

Now, you might be tempted to respond that this doesn't mean anything,
it's just advertising. - But you would be wrong. - The related legal
principles are as follows: In the event of death or injury by a Mac
owner or guest resulting from a failure of the floatation system,
MacGregor could be sued under several legal principles (deceptive trade
practices, negligence, torts, punitive damages, criminal
negligence, etc.) with the plaintiffs citing the above sections of
MacGregor's published literature. In other words, if MacGregor didn't
have good support for the above statements (and inferences
fairly derived therefrom), they would be taking a hell of a chance
releasing such public statements about their floatation system. (And
since they have the advice of a fairly good legal team,
it's rather naive (incredulous, actually) to suggest that they simply
put that information out there on the web without approval by counsel.





Cheers
Marty

Cheers
Marty

Have a nice day Marty.

Jim

JimC wrote:

[snipped more unfounded repitition]

Once more, I never said that the Mac was a suitable vessel to take
offshore in severe weather. (How many times do I have to repeat myself?)
I said that if Joe had been in a Mac 26M, I thought his boat would have
remained afloat

Yes and most of us, who have a little experience, agree that while some
part of your Mac may have remained afloat, it would have been entirely
uninhabitable, and probably fatal for those involved.

Why you must persist in suggesting that this rather flimsy vessel would
somehow be suitable for such a venture is absolutely mind boggling.

Cheers
Marty