Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jeff Morris wrote:

Here's what someone who claims to be an attorney said about the Macgregor
warnings:

"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. "

Are you claiming that lawyer was full of ****?

Nope. I take the warnings quite seriously. However, I also recognize
that one of the purposes of the warnings is to minimize the possibility
of tort actions against Mac.


You're being disengenuous, Jim. You were being quite clear the the warnings
were something that could be ignored.

Nope. I said nothing of the kind. And have never suggested that I intend
to ignore them. My point was that differen't portions of the warnings
said different things.


Now you're admitted they are deadly
serious. This is a huge backpedal Jim. You're admitting you were full of ****
from the beginning! This is a Slam Dunk, you just Screwed the Pooch, your
client was sent to the chair!


Nope, not at all. There is no rule that states that you can't use some
common sense regarding warnings you get regarding a new product.

You're going to squirm, claiming you never said to ignore the warnings. SO are
you saying you always wear a seatbelt on the Nautilus? You're just another
sorry lawyer, and we all know what that means.


Wrong again, Jeff. Although I don't wear seatbelts when working out on
the Nautilus machines (since the "fall" to the carpeted, cushioned floor
would only be about a foot) I DO wear seatbelts when driving or riding
in a car, and I DO keep the ballast full when operating my boat. - In
other words, there's a difference between sliding off the seat of a
Nautilus machine onto a carpeted floor, and being involved in an
automobile accident. Again, a little common sense is sometimes useful.

Jim








Actually, while I think the skipper should go to jail for Boating While
Intoxicated, the family of the children might have a rather good case. The

boat

was not going fast, the conditions were calm, and while the boat might have

been

overloaded according to the warnings, most people probably wouldn't think 8
adults on deck is too much for a 26 foot sailboat. I'll bet hundreds of

people

saw them that night and probably no one commented that it looks dangerously
overloaded. OTOH, I've frequently seen smaller boats that appeared

overloaded,

but I've almost never seem them spontaneously rollover.

While acknowledging that I havent' read the transcript and wasn't there
at the trial, that's not the story I see quoted from various news
articles. For example:

Published April 30, 2004

MIDDLEBURY -- Four law-enforcement officers testified Thursday that the
skipper of a boat that capsized on Lake Champlain, killing two Charlotte
children, was extraordinarily drunk the night of the accident.

The testimony from three police officers and one U.S. Coast Guard
official came on the second day of George Dean Martin's trial in Vermont
District Court in Middlebury.

Martin, 48, of Charlotte has pleaded not guilty to two counts of boating
while intoxicated with death resulting in the July 4, 2002, drownings of
Trevor Mack, 4, and his sister Melissa Mack, 9. Each count carries up to
five years in prison and a $2,000 fine.

Addison County prosecutors contend Martin was so drunk that he operated
the boat improperly by MAKING A SHARP LEFT TURN AND GUNNINIG THE
ENGINE,WHICH CAUSED THE VESSEL TO CAPSIZE. Defense attorneys argue that
the boat -- a combination motorboat and sailboat called a MacGregor 26
-- was inherently unsafe and prone to tip with more than four people aboard.

Martin and 10 PASSENGERS were on the vessel that night. They set out
toward Diamond Island to watch Independence Day fireworks. The boat
flipped as Martin began steering the MacGregor back toward shore.

Mike Fish, a Colchester police detective who responded to the scene and
interviewed Martin on land shortly after the accident, said Martin was
"substantially intoxicated."

"He was swaying back and forth like a breeze blowing a small sapling,"
Fish testified.



Yes, I only saw an initial report which made it sound like he was still at
anchor. He had actually left the raft up and made the mistake of turning too
quickly. I said there were 8 adults on deck and three small children below,
that's what the report says. While the children count as "passengers" their
total weight was probably about 100 pounds, and being near the waterline
shouldn't contribute much to the unbalance.

Bottom line Jim - how many 26 foot sailboats roll over because there are 8
adults on deck? Only one that I know of. And its the one that you keep
claiming is very stable. And sadly, 2 children were trapped below, even
though there were numerous people there trying to rescue them, even though the
boat had a double hull and foam flotation.

Jim is right.

SV

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Jonathan Ganz wrote:

I never realized that *you* would be capable of being
injured by luke warm coffee.

The point is that you don't know the facts, Jonathan. You don't know how
many complaints MacDonalds had received because their coffee wasn't
served hot enough, as most people prefer.

Jim

Donal wrote:

"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message
...

Well, we can see that you're quite a sailor. I'm sure you can find
a couple of other excuses for not sailing.



Jon,

I used to have a powerboat.

I once(maybe twice) went out while under the influence. I "showed off" to
the guests by putting the helm hard over at 35 kts. It was great fun, but
we were lucky that I didn't sink the boat.

If I had capsized the boat, then it would have been *my* fault.... and my
fault alone.

I now sail "dry".



I had a friend who was driving a power boat while ONE friend sat on the
forward deck. The skipper was showing off by making a series of sharp
turns. In the process, his friend was thrown off the boat and run over
by the prop. No one blamed the manufacturer of the boat, but it was a
tragic, life altering event.

Jim

Alan Gomes wrote:

Alright...let's try this one more time....

What percentage of capsizes *of any kind of boat* get reported? I don't
know...it's just a question to consider. But if it's a relatively small
percentage--which is certainly possible--then you cannot conclude that the
lack of Mac capsize reports proves anything as to its stability. You are the
one who drew the conclusion that since there are not a significant number of
capsize reports on the Mac then they must not be capsizing significantly.
All I'm doing is questioning the logic of that conclusion on the grounds
that reported capsizes may not approximate actual ones.

--AG


What I was pointing out was that a good number of the contributors to
this ng have claimed that the Macs are a pile of crap, and that they are
dangerously underbuilt. They then try to "prove" their assertions by
citing one or two anecdotes about Mac owners being stranded, and/or
about the drunk skipper incident. My point is that, despite repeated
queries, no evidence has been provided about any reports of owners or
passengers being drowned or injured because of such supposed structural
or design deficiencies. I also pointed out that there are lots of folks
on this ng who clearly would love to be able to throw more dirt at
MacGregor and at MacGregor owners. (If you don't believe this, take a
look through recent discussions of the Mac.) Although you are right that
it's possible that there are reasons that such problems wouldn't gain
widespread publicity, in view of the ongoing Mac-Bashing on this ng
(which has been going on for over five years), it seems highly unlikely
that a fundamental structural or design defect in the Mac wouldn't be
discovered and posted all over the net. It's possible, of course, just
as it's possible that the earth will be hit by a huge asteroid next
year, killing us all. - But not likely, IMO. (Incidentally, do YOU have
any evidence to support YOUR particular theory?)

Jim



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


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

I believe 'bow riding' is illegal in MD..

SV



"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...

I had a friend who was driving a power boat while ONE friend sat on the
forward deck. The skipper was showing off by making a series of sharp
turns. In the process, his friend was thrown off the boat and run over
by the prop. No one blamed the manufacturer of the boat, but it was a
tragic, life altering event.

Jim

JAXAshby wrote:

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?



And your point is? - -

Are you saying that if you don't go out in Force 4 or Force 5 winds you
can't enjoy sailing your boat? Are you saying that I can't enjoy sailing
my boat if I don't sail it in Force 5 winds?

What exactly ARE you saying, JAX?

Jim

SAIL LOCO wrote:

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.

I usually don't take part in the Mac bashing since I really don't care but your
comment needs to be addressed. We passed one today on the way to Baltimore.
Now bear in mind the wind was blowing 12-15 and the Mac driver was on a close
reach the same as us. Easy and fast point of sail. Beautiful day. He wasn't
moving! His sails seemed to be trimmed correctly. He wasn't moving! We
turned around and he dropped his genny and started motoring. I fail to see how
this boat is "responsive and fun to sail" The day was a '10' and he wasn't
moving!
S/V Express 30 "Ringmaster"
"Trains are a winter sport"

If he had his sails trimmed properly and his keel adjusted properly, he
would be moving. And I don't know which Mac boat he was sailing.
Obviously, I don't know what the circumstances were in your anecdote.
But I do know that anecdotes don't prove anything, Loco.

Jim

katysails wrote:

what you
apparently don't appreciate, is that the Mac is a fun boat to sail.

Most 4 year olds think it's fun to pick their nose...that doesn't make it a
right or healthy thing to do....


Maybe, but I'm not a four year old. I have been sailing for over 35
years, and I have sailed on a number of boats.

Jim

Jim's right.

"Jim Deafer Cate" wrote ...



What I was pointing out was that the Macs are a pile of crap,
and they are dangerously underbuilt.

Horvath wrote:

On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 22:03:19 -0500, Jim Cate wrote
this crap:


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.


I just came from a regatta where the Macs were given a PHRF rating of
320. Which makes it the only thing slower than a Cal 20.

During a race, I passed one like it was standing still. Wait, I
think it WAS standing still.


And exactly which Mac was that Horvath? - Was it the Mac 26M? And how
long had the skipper sailed the boat?


Jim