On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:53:01 -0700, "Capt. JG" <jganz@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"JimC" <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:OHeMj.8414$2g1.5463@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Actually, Neal, that would have been a good choice. To cite just one
>> factor, if Joe had been sailing a Mac26M, with its positive floatation,
>> the boat would have survived and wouldn't have been dragged to the
bottom
>> by its keel. And of course, if you had a Mac (instead of your
>> no-boat-at-all), you could spend more time sailing and less time
posting
>> childish, vacuous notes on this ng. But of course, you didn't make a
>> decision to get a Mac or a decision to get anything else for that
matter,
>> so we can look forward to more of your never-ending sophistry.
>>
>> Jim
>
>
>Neal is an idiot, but besides that, if you were on your Mac in the
>conditions Joe described, you would surely be a greater idiot than Neal
>(even he isn't suicidal).
>
>Assuming the boat can't sink (which I seriously doubt - given the
pounding
>it would endure, it would likely break up), it would be dismasted for
sure.
>Then, (not that sailing would have ever been an option), your only chance
>for survival would be below decks, while the boat rolled over and over
and
>over, perhaps even pitchpolling from time to time. It would be like being
in
>a wa****ng machine with heavy and sharp objects. You'd find yourself in a
>non-habitable environment of flying hazards including yourself that would
>break your bones into mush. In desperation to escape, you would vacate
the
>premises, and then either be thrown off the boat by the wave action or
you
>would remove yourself from the boat deliberately. Either way, you
wouldn't
>survive.
How would a Mac26M ever get 200 miles off the Texas coast, especially if
the
starting point was Belize?
|
