On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 10:56:29 -0600, JimC <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>
>Capt. JG wrote:
>
>> "JimC" <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:zPAMj.4934$GO4.262@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>
>>>Capt. JG wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"JimC" <avocat5@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>>>news:6%qMj.277$26.171@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Capt. JG 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually, Captain, your conclusions are unfounded and your assertions
>>>>>unsup****ted. Of course, I didn't say that I would want to take my Mac
200
>>>>>miles offshore, nor would I recommend it to anyone else. What I DID
say
>>>>>was that if Joe were offshore in a Mac26M, the boat would have stayed
>>>>>afloat and would not have been dragged to the bottom of the Gulf by a
>>>>>heavy keel. (Also, if Neal had a Mac 26M instead of his
no-boat-at-all,
>>>>>he could spend more of his time sailing instead of posting negative,
>>>>>critical notes on this ng.)
>>>>>
>>>>>You claim that the Mac would have "rolled over and over and over,
perhaps
>>>>>even picthcpolling [sic]." This, of course, may be your opinion, and
>>>>>actually I don't question that you sincerely believe this to be the
case.
>>>>>But, other than your own personal biases, what evidence to you have
to
>>>>>sup****t this assertion? - Is it the usual negative bias against the
Macs
>>>>>that you think you can safely rely on? Is it the fact that you don't
>>>>>think anyone on this ng would want to question any negative bull****
>>>>>posted on the ng regarding the Macs? Or, alternatively (and assuming
>>>>>that the skipper wasn't drunk and didn't go offshore with an empty
>>>>>ballast tank, and that he had enough sense to put out a storm
anchor), do
>>>>>you actually have some valid evidence or proof sup****ting your
>>>>>assertions? -Including your assertion that the the Macs will roll
over
>>>>>and over and over and over again in heavy seas, and perhaps
pitchpoll?
>>>>>If the latter, i.e., if you have some valid evidence, let's see the
>>>>>evidence and statistics sup****ting your theories. You also say that
the
>>>>>Macs will simply "break up" in heavy seas. Again, where is your
>>>>>evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, sup****ting this
assertion?
>>>>>
>>>>>And to anyone else who wants to bash the Macs, WHERE IS YOUR
EVIDENCE,
>>>>>OTHER THAN ANECDOTES AND HEARSAY?) Like, put up or shut up.
>>>>>
>>>>>In any event, despite all the supercilious anti-Mac propaganda, the
fact
>>>>>remains that the Mac 26s are one of the few boats over 25 feet (not
the
>>>>>only one, but one of the few) to have positive floatation.
>>>>>
>>>>>Jim
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Are you claiming that a dismasted boat in heavy seas won't roll?
>>>
>>>What I am claiming is that you have no evidence to back up your
>>>assertions, and that perhaps you ought to qualify them. As to any
>>>susceptibility of the boat to roll, I (and others) have tried to pull
it
>>>over with pulleys for cleaning. While initially tender, after a few
>>>degrees of heel it rapidly becomes very stiff and resistant to further
>>>movement. If dismasted, the ballast would still be functional, and I'm
>>>assuming the skipper would have put out a sea anchor. I'm not saying
that
>>>the boat wouldn't roll under any cir***stances, but that's not going
to
>>>be easy to accomplish, and the boat tends to right itself quickly.
>>>
>>>If so, well QED. No on besides yourself would even consider taking a
Mac
>>>out in those
>>>
>>>>conditions, so you're right I have absolutely NO evidence. LOL
>>>>
>>>
>>>It would be nice if you would respond to what I actually said rather
than
>>>what you would have liked for me to say. - I didn't say I would take
the
>>>boat 200 miles offshore. In fact, I said that I WOULDN'T want to take
the
>>>boat 200 miles offshore. Nevertheless, the boat is built to float even
if
>>>the hull is compromised and even if, under some strange cir***stance,
the
>>>boat rolled. As unpleasant as that would be, it would be better than
being
>>>on a conventional boat while it was being pulled to the bottom by its
heay
>>>keel. In contrast, in the Mac, unless the hull is completely torn
apart,
>>>there is sufficient floatation to keep the boat afloat even if the hull
is
>>>compromised.
>>>
>>>I said that you have no evidence, other than anecdotes and hearsay, to
>>>back up your assertions. Thanks for proving my point. LOL.
>>>
>>>Jim
>>
>>
>>
>> I absolutely have evidence that a dismasting will cause a capsize in
heavy
>> seas. Pulling a boat over is quite, quite different than being on the
ocean
>> in heavy seas. Is there some evidence you would like to present that
shows
>> this isn't true? Have you ever been in a boat rolling from side to side
in
>> ocean conditions?
>
>Yes.
>
>I have.
>>
>> So, you're saying that because a boat supposedly will continue to float
>> means that it won't capsize over and over? Perhaps you should read
Fastnet
>> Force 10, and get back to us. That's exactly what happened to several
boats.
>> They continued to float, yet rolled over and over to the point where
the
>> crews abandoned them (to their peril).
>>
>
>Did I say that? - (Nope.) But so far, you haven't provided evidence that
>a Mac, with a sea anchor deployed, would roll over and over again. You
>said that it would several times (over and over again) but you didn't
>sup****t your assertions.
>
You can stop right there. There is no attachment point on a Mac26m
that is anywhere near strong enough to attach a sea anchor.
|
