"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do lookup
the
difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank, you're
embarrassing yourself.


How long did it take you figure it out? .... and why?


BTW, I really think that Jim will actally enjoy his boat!!!

Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do lookup
the
difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank, you're
embarrassing yourself.


How long did it take you figure it out? .... and why?

Figure out what? That you're generally drunk when you post? I think we've all
known that for a long time. Or that you rant on about topics about which you
know nothing at all? That's also been pretty clear for a while.




BTW, I really think that Jim will actally enjoy his boat!!!


So do I. Assuming, of course, that he ever finds the time to use it.

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do
lookup
the
difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank,
you're
embarrassing yourself.


How long did it take you figure it out? .... and why?

Figure out what? That you're generally drunk when you post? I think
we've all
known that for a long time. Or that you rant on about topics about which
you
know nothing at all? That's also been pretty clear for a while.

So... I've reduced you to launching Ad Hominem attacks on a drunkard.

However, I seem to have failed in my efforts to stop you launching ad
hominem attacks on people who sail a boat that you don't approve of.





BTW, I really think that Jim will actually enjoy his boat!!!


So do I. Assuming, of course, that he ever finds the time to use it.

I hope that he does.


Regards


Donal
--

"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
"Donal" wrote in message
...

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
...
Come back when you're sober, Donal, if that ever happens. And do
lookup
the
difference between a centerboard trunk and a water ballast tank,
you're
embarrassing yourself.


How long did it take you figure it out? .... and why?

Figure out what? That you're generally drunk when you post? I think
we've all
known that for a long time. Or that you rant on about topics about which
you
know nothing at all? That's also been pretty clear for a while.

So... I've reduced you to launching Ad Hominem attacks on a drunkard.


How would you know? You're too drunk to tell reality from fantasy!


However, I seem to have failed in my efforts to stop you launching ad
hominem attacks on people who sail a boat that you don't approve of.

When did I launch "ad hominem attacks" on anyone because of their boat? And
when did I "disapprove" of Jim's boat? I only objected to his claims about
performance which often went beyond the marketing claims. Or his claims that
there was a long waiting list, when he got his in 5 weeks. Or his claims that
the past performance of the company, or the properties 26X were irrelevant,
because the 26M was a completely new boat. Or that it had a double hull, which
it doesn't. Or that the 26X had a 200 gallon centerboard trunk.

The fact that I objected to on these grounds does not mean that I don't approve
of the boat. In fact, I can understand why the Mac might be the best choice for
some boaters. (Though I wonder why anyone would get one in the Northeast, where
the draft is not an issue, and the chop usually prevents them from sailing well,
or achieving speed under power. A used Catalina 30 would seem to be a lot more
boat unless you really wanted a trailer boat.)

Jeff... you realize you are arguing your point with a self confused
alcoholic! That alone reduces the validity of your argument!

CM

"Jeff Morris" wrote in message
| When did I launch "ad hominem attacks" on anyone because of their boat?
And
| when did I "disapprove" of Jim's boat? I only objected to his claims
about
| performance which often went beyond the marketing claims. Or his claims
that
| there was a long waiting list, when he got his in 5 weeks. Or his claims
that
| the past performance of the company, or the properties 26X were
irrelevant,
| because the 26M was a completely new boat. Or that it had a double hull,
which
| it doesn't. Or that the 26X had a 200 gallon centerboard trunk.
|
| The fact that I objected to on these grounds does not mean that I don't
approve
| of the boat. In fact, I can understand why the Mac might be the best
choice for
| some boaters. (Though I wonder why anyone would get one in the Northeast,
where
| the draft is not an issue, and the chop usually prevents them from sailing
well,
| or achieving speed under power. A used Catalina 30 would seem to be a lot
more
| boat unless you really wanted a trailer boat.)
|
|
|

Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

Jeff, do you actually believe that the warnings regarding the Mac
weren't reviewed by legal counsel? If so, I have several bridges you
might have an interst in.


I never said lawyers weren't invovlved. I only said they were serious warnings.
You were claiming they should not be taken literally, implying that you can't
trust anything a lawyer says.


(Note, This DOES NOT mean that the warnings
about sailing without the water ballast shouldn't be taken seriously.)


What??? How can you be so disingenuous? Oh, I forgot, you're a lawyer.

Remember, you said:

Jeff, have you had many dealings with corporate attorneys? Or tort
lawyers? If you had, you would recognize that these warnings, if taken
literally, are something like the warnings posted in our health center
warning us to be sure to wear our seat belt when using the Nautilus
weight training equipment. Or, like the long list of warnings you get
when you purchase any electrical appliance, audio equipment, etc.

Jim - you're the one who claimed the warnings were just lawyer talk! You can't
take it back, you said this. Perhaps it was because you hadn't sailed the boat
yet. Now that you have, you're admitting that these are serious warnings.
Well, I guess that's about as close a lawyer can get to admitting they were full
of **** to begin with.

Jeff, which part of the warning should I interpret literally? The part
that tells me that the tank should be full when either powering or
sailing, or the part that tells me how to operate the boat without the
water ballast?

Jim

Marc wrote:

Your'e no effing lawyer. First hit on google
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

the facts were that she wasn't driving and Mc D's ignored 100's of
burning complaints and continued insisting that its franchises hold
their coffee at 185 degrees, a temp sufficient to cause full thickness
burns.




How many complaints did they get in the same period about the coffee
being too cold? 100,000? 200,000? The facts are that most people expect
hot coffee to be hot, and they recognize that they have to use a little
common sense in handling the coffee, and not holding between their legs
while in a car. (Iced coffee is the kind that's cold.)

Jim

Alan Gomes wrote:

And *my* point was simply to question whether one could conclude from a
*lack* of capsize reports the number of actual capsizes. (Though a large
number of reported capsizes would suggest a problem, it would not
necessarily follow that a lack of such reports suggests an infrequent number
of capsizes.)

--AG


And *my* response is that you can always postulate about why those
reports aren't turning up (It's POSSIBLE, of course, that there is a
conspiracy among Mac owners and the MacGregor company under which any
owner who capsizes is immediately paid a large sum of hush money to
prevent him or her from reporting it.) As can be easily seen from the
discussions of the Mac 26 on this ng, there is a fairly extensive group
of boat owners on this ng who take pleasure in discussing perceived
deficiencies of the Macs. If they could possibly find information
suggesting that the Mac design was causing excessive numbers of capsizes
or other failures, they would hop on those reports with great pleasure.
Also, if the Macs were inherently unsafe or prone to capsize, don't you
think that there would be some report of such a major problem in at
least one of the news media, sailing journals, internet sites, etc.?

The fact remains that no one on this board has yet provided any evidence
that the Macs suffer a disproportionate number of capsizes or structural
failures, despite my repeated suggestions that if they have such
evidence, they should put it on the table. The reports seen on this
ng are, for the most part, mere anecdotes and opinions from posters who,
for the most part, have never sailed the boats they are talking about.

Jim




"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Alan Gomes wrote:


snip (Jeff, if the


Macs have a fundamentally unsafe design, where are the hundreds of
reports of capsizes and drownings that would be expected with all the
other 30,000 boats? With that many boats, if the boat was inherently
unsafe, and with that many boats out there, we would see hundreds of
such reports every year.)


I'm curious about something here. The implication of this statement

seems to

be that a capsize typically will result in a fatality and hence would be
reported. Is that a fair assumption to make? Could it not be that these
boats *do* capsize with some regularity, that no fatality or other
significant harm results, and that the capsize remains unreported? I'm

not

saying that is actually the case. I'm just questioning the force of the
argument from silence that is being used here to prove the contrary

(i.e.,

few *reported* capsizes = few capsizes).

--Alan Gomes

Unless someone has the transcript of the trial, we don't have all the
facts. My point was that I don't see lots of reports about macs
capsizing,or lots of reports of drownings as a result of a supposed
faulty Mac design. My note was intended as a response to those on this
newsgroup who seem to think that posting one or two anectdotes about
problems with the Macs (or any other boat, for that matter) is "proof"
of a faulty design, etc. It isn't of course, and in the case of the
Macs, we have a much larger group of owners that must be taken into
account.

Jim

Jim

Jeff Morris wrote:

Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the heart of
the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor!


Jeff, most of my comments were in response to your own. - Am I supposed
to just let you post unfounded or twisted comments about me or comments
denigrating the Mac 26M with no response? As I stated, I'm
participating in these discussions because, in the past, many of the Mac
supporters have simply left after getting a few sarcastic remarks from
those on this ng. I intend to do my best to see that any further
discussions of the Macs don't end up as a one-sided mob attack, as they
have in the past.

Actually, I think that we have pretty well ruminated over most of the
issues discussed above. What we haven't discussed, and what you
apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.
Despite its limitations, it is responsive and balanced and a lot of fun
to sail. One of the most exciting aspects of sailing the Mac 26M, as
with some of the other boats I have sailed, is the experience, after the
sails have been raised, of turning off the motor and sensing that the
boat has begun to move forward and accelerate under sail. To me, the
whole experience is somewhat mysterious. It's as though the boat has
suddenly come to life, empowered by some silent, invisible, yet
powerful force. Sailors have been experiencing it for thousands of
years, but it's still an exciting, evergreen experience for me.

Jim

god, I can't fricken believe a Mac 26 owner is arguing with a training wheels
owner about seaworthiness of boats!!

neither one of them is *ever* going to see Force 4 winds -- let along Force 5
winds, so what are they arguing about anyway?

From: Jim Cate
Date: 8/8/2004 11:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:



Jeff Morris wrote:

Good grief, Jim you're writing a legal brief here! And that's at the heart
of
the problem, you're approaching this as a lawyer, not a sailor!


Jeff, most of my comments were in response to your own. - Am I supposed
to just let you post unfounded or twisted comments about me or comments
denigrating the Mac 26M with no response? As I stated, I'm
participating in these discussions because, in the past, many of the Mac
supporters have simply left after getting a few sarcastic remarks from
those on this ng. I intend to do my best to see that any further
discussions of the Macs don't end up as a one-sided mob attack, as they
have in the past.

Actually, I think that we have pretty well ruminated over most of the
issues discussed above. What we haven't discussed, and what you
apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.
Despite its limitations, it is responsive and balanced and a lot of fun
to sail. One of the most exciting aspects of sailing the Mac 26M, as
with some of the other boats I have sailed, is the experience, after the
sails have been raised, of turning off the motor and sensing that the
boat has begun to move forward and accelerate under sail. To me, the
whole experience is somewhat mysterious. It's as though the boat has
suddenly come to life, empowered by some silent, invisible, yet
powerful force. Sailors have been experiencing it for thousands of
years, but it's still an exciting, evergreen experience for me.

Jim