Incredible "Secrets of Yacht Design" website located...

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by D'ARTOIS

First of all, I have never called the 26 a "babykiller".

I think he was addressing me.

[mighetto]

Originally Posted by SailDesign

Woodboat - every sport has its "lingo". If you hear someone talking about "oaring", you just know he rented a boat at the local lake. Similarly, when a sailor hears someone talking about mph, they assume powerboater. Same goes for folks who habitually refer to the "left" side of the boat, or the "front". They obviously have either not been in it long, or don't care.
Frank Mighetto has been excessively argumentative in this forum, as a quick (OK - it won't be quick) read of the TP52 thread will show. As an experienced designer, I can tell you that his notions are wrong. There is not other, kinder word for it. Hence the disgust with which he ids treated by those who have (probably stupidly) tried to educate him on the realities of sailing yacht design.
Steve

What a meany. Steve, just a couple of wrong notions. That is all I ask from you. You have all of http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm to chose the wrong notions from. Lets remember that The Jonstones had no degrees in boat design when they came up with the J-24. Perhaps it is the same with Bruce Lee and Farr. It takes only the will to hang a shingle to be a boat designer in the USA. Perhaps it should not be that way. But without the kind of evaluation we are doing on this thread there is little chance that boat designers will be worthy of the term professional.

[SailDesign]

Frank,
You asked for a couple of wrong notions. So here goes.....

You say "Fully ballasted Murrelet has the stability of a cruising keel boat". That is wrong. No boat with interior ballast will have the stability of a boat with exterior ballast. Low-angle stability may feel similar, but since it all comes from form stability, it will diminish rapidly.

You say "When Europeans first began settling the Americas, they were obliged to utilize the ports long established there by the native American people." They, in fact, created new "ports" and trading posts where their boats could land.

You say "In March of 2003 even the marketers of MacGregor yachts played into this myth stating in a comparison of the X to the 2003 M model powersailer that "The (X-boat) long centerboard trunk also required a huge opening in the hull, in the most important structural area of the boat (as well as creating a very large drag problem. See Performance)". Actually, they were/are right. It is very hard to attain a continuity of structure even over a moulded-in slot like the X has. There is no depth of floor (that's structural floor, not "sole") over the slot, leading to a weaker area transversely in that region.

You say "Likely owing to dealer/distributor influence, MacGregor Yachts company added 300 lbs of solid ballast to the M in the form of resin in the water ballast tank and additional solid weight around the centerboard trunk. This is not unlike what fixed keel boat owners do when they find their vessel is a tippy cruiser. " When someone dicovers his keel boat is "tippy" ("Tender" would be the correct term for that, BTW), they add ballast as colse to the bottom of the keel as possible. Inside ballast is a waste of time for curing a temder boat, as it is too close to the CG to do any good. It does have its place, but that is not it.

You say "When the Max26x was introduced her design took advantage of a relatively unproven rigging invention that reduces or eliminates the need for weight on an external foil or inside the hull. " Actually, a roller-furling headsail does not do anything for or against needing ballast, or a fin for windward work. What you have said is akin to saying "Having cruise control reduces or eliminates the need for four wheels on a car", or vice versa, even.

Well, I have had my fill of trying to read your website for a second time (yes, I did once read the whole thing), so I will leave it at that.

I would like to say that my position here is not antagonistic, I jut happen to have been designing boats for 20 years, of all types, and have never read so much misinformation as appears on your site and in your posts to this forum.

Steve

[frankofile]

Originally Posted by mighetto

What a meany. Steve, just a couple of wrong notions. That is all I ask from you. You have all of http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/murrelet.htm to chose the wrong notions from.

Frank, here is a nice little list from Skippy a few pages back of SOME of the ridiculous, stupid, and wrong things you've said. There are many, many more.

Quote: Originally Posted by Spaghetto
11-01-2004
Duty calls. .... I will not enjoy this, but what choice do I have? I must go forward with a sense of noblesse oblige.
11-03-2004
It is my understanding that bringing the bulb weight closer to the hull makes the boat faster like bringing the arms of a twirling ice skater in makes the ice skater twirl faster.
The better design is to just get rid of the weight on the fin and put it closer to or internal to the hull
11-04-2004
My Mac26x is more worthy of an ocean crossing than Esmeralda [a TP52].
11-12-2004
Ballast is just weight, like {everthing else on the boat and} the hull itself.
11-15-2004
If weight on a long thin foil really makes a boat go faster then why don't powerboats have weight on long thin foils?
if an ice skater wants to twerl faster she brings the weight of her arms in, she does not extend them. This internal ballast rule applies to everything that moves: cars, motorcycles, planes, power boats and yes - even sailboats. Internal ballast is just faster.
An ice yacht theoretically has no limit to its speed owing to the wind she creates just by moving forward. That wind changes the apparent wind ...
12-01-2004
it appears that water ballast should not be pumped side to side but rather remain in both sides to improve windward performance in rough water and the ballast should be low in the boat, like twin keels
12-02-2004
I spent most of my life power boating
In anycase the notion of pumping water from side to side as defining movable ballast ... is a new notion and an incorrect one when you realize that water ballasted vessels benefit by having ballast on both sides of the vessel owing to the stable forces similar to a twin keel vessel.
12-16-2004
The wire, folks like to call a backstay, IMO is for motoring.
12-20-2004
My Mac26x is more TransPacific than probably most of the TP52s.
12-20-2004
Americas Cup rules prohibit hollows. This I understand is what prevents multihulls from competing because the space between the hulls is a big hollow. The effect of the hollow, is like that of the spoon. It lifts the hull from the water at speed.

[And from another website ybw.com]
28/09/2004
The Mac26x is a serious ocean sailboat.
There is nothing in a monohull under 40 foot and under 180,000 US that compares.

[mighetto]

First of all, I have never called the 26 a "babykiller".

Great, but do try to distinguish between Mac26 cruisers. The 26x is the eXtreme sailboat. She was marketed as revolutionary because of the movable ballast. The current 26, the m model, is a traditional fixed water ballast vessel with the engine of the X. She is more closely aligned with the Mac19 and with the classic 26 models, the 26d for dagerboard and the 26s for swing keel.

The 2nd point is that - although I have followed the posts in the TP52 thread - I have never mixed in, because it's none of my business - I don't simply know the issue of what's all about. Ok, now I just learned that one person, accompanied by 10 others, adults and children, stepped on a boat called McGregor 26x.

How could you know that 10,000 views of a thread started by Tripp Gal on Sailing Anarchy was the end result. That is 10,000 views In one day. How could you know that this little Mac26x vessel played such a huge role in taking down the 11 TP52s or that Teeters failure to put down the Mac26x meant he could not have the US Sailing delegation to the GP RWP use his research to advantage. The Mac26x was in the middle of its planned production run as based on othere models with the success of the X. Its halt of production is directly related to the falure of Teeters to get beyond his personal vested interests for the good of his profession and indeed all sailors.

The design of that particular vessel is known to me, it is older bthan the '90 -s; it existed already long before when it was marketed in the UK. It had at that time a retractable keel - no waterballast etc.

The design basics can be found in multiple examples all over the world. I prefer to say the design came from the Bethewate Tasars but Bethewate Design has long noted that the Tasar design came from the cod head and mac tail work boats. These boats are sea kindly as well as fast.

The defendant is certainly to be hold responsible: nobody with his senses tuned the right way goes with that number of people on a 8.00 mtr boat.

You are kind for saying so. The thing is that I do not see how it happened anyway. I suspect a wake was involved but no on has been willing to go on record with that. The end of a 4th of July fireworks display usually includes a race back to the launch ramps and public docks. I think it likely there was some kind of a wake and then drunken response to that wake.

Q. What is the number of allowed pax on that weekender?

No such thing as a weekender. The Mac26x is a cruiser that is capable of racing because she can be sailed without water ballast. No limit for the number of passangers was ever established for the boat. You may not know that Slokum had 100 girls on his Spray which has the cods head and mac tail form of the mac26x. There is an established limit for the 26m.

The question if the boat is stable or not is notb the issue. The issue is - is the boat stable enough with 11 persons on board?

Stability is everything in a boat. You might rephrase. It is not the number of persons but rather where you put them. The manufacturer states that it is a good idea to be fully ballasted when you have more than 4 adults aboard. Martin neglected to fill the water ballast with 11. Even so, PHRF allows 10 or more on race boats under 30 foot.

Q. Have you been appointed as expert-witness on the plaintiff's side? As an expert? On boating affairs?

I have served as expert witness on managment decision making cases in health care and at government institutions. I am likely the owner with the most time on the water for a Mac26x. To give you some background, I have seen a lot of silly business in my day. When things don't look right, like when a guy like Teeters testifies against a design when no one thinks the boat is at fault there is a decision making issue. In this case US Sailing should have made it clear that Teeters was acting on his own. They eventually orchestrated Teeters retirement from his position as Director of Research at US Sailing. I understand this happened right before testifying. But the aura of US Sailing that Teeters had went with him. I strongly suspect, as a business man's expert witness, that MacGregor Yachts found business insurance for Mac26x production costly owing to Teeter's involvement. Hence the decision to halt production even when the plan had been to produce more than one model at the plant. The only time the plant has produced a single model was during X production. The popularity of this vessel remains very high.

Was that the inducement of the TP52 topic and that Jim Teeters - who was testifying for the defendant, claimed that the boat was not designed to carry 11 persons safely?

I believe Teeters objections were on the entire notion that a boat could be operated with or without water ballast. Movable ballast has been the undoing of the TP52s. Movable ballast of any kind would have been the enemy of Teeters, if you can assume his main purpose was to serve others or himself, rather than his profession. I suspect MacGregor Yachts could have a product disparagement action against him. But I have not gotten any indication that such action has been started. The Max26m has yet to fill two full production lines at the factory in California. That leaves two lines to produce some other boat, like the Mac26x. However, there are now several companies producing boats like the X and M including one that appears to be making an identical copy in Austrailia. An economist is what is needed to serve as expert witness on this. I am not an economist. Roger MacGregor, however, is.

[D'ARTOIS]

I object further to a number of points Mr Mighetto:

That continuously snapping at designers in general - there are good ones and there are lesser good ones, just like in any other profession.

A second issue is the fact that this poor Mr Martin is put for 10 years in jail next to the fine and communal work he has to perform.

If you had said, I know that the 26x is a rickety, unstable vessel, and that it might quite possible that whilst powering and being overloaded, a sudden movement had tipped the boat. Eight adults, three children, no testimonies in the press of what had caused the tipping over. Overloaded may be with overweight people on a rickety boat, the accused Mr Martin must have had really the public opinion against him.
Not a very good lawyer did he have as well.

In such a circumstance you do not say......Anarchy.com is expecting......
.......and I have to come out smelling like roses......

This is a very, very sad occasion and Mr Martin is definately not the only one to blame.

I sincerely wish you will refrain from expressing any further nonsense explanation about stability and related topics. The sample of Mr Martin's accident is absolutely not the right one.

[woodboat]

"left" side of the boat, or the "front". They obviously have either not been in it long, or don't care.

Count me in the don't care group. I had three commercial crabbers on my block. My next door neighbors only gave it up because of a change in crabbing regulations. So after 40 years I still mix port,right,MPH and knots all in the same sentence. I don't feel a need to be "proper" but then again I am not designing boats for a living, simply using them. If I had a boat that required communication with the crew or designed for a living I would probably clean up my jargon. What I find amusing is when a weekend boater gets snooty with a commercial crabber about proper jargon I know the two guys next door said left and right on a regular basis and never port or starboard.

[mighetto]

Steve, thankyou for getting serious.

You say "Fully ballasted Murrelet has the stability of a cruising keel boat". That is wrong. No boat with interior ballast will have the stability of a boat with exterior ballast. Low-angle stability may feel similar, but since it all comes from form stability, it will diminish rapidly.

I am not the only one saying this. So is Roger Macgregor. Of course you have to be technically correct. The stability curves of a keel boat and of a twin keel boat are going to be different. In fact the water ballasted represented in the Mac26x has BETTER stability curves IMO. But of course I need the manufacturer to help me generate those curves.

You say "When Europeans first began settling the Americas, they were obliged to utilize the ports long established there by the native American people." They, in fact, created new "ports" and trading posts where their boats could land.

Yes in fact they purposfully infected the established ports with smallpox so they could not be used. Of course this is just the most popular threory of why established ports fell so hard from Smallpox. The story is that Hudson Bay blankets were contaminated with Smallpox and then distributed to the port villages.

You say "In March of 2003 even the marketers of MacGregor yachts played into this myth stating in a comparison of the X to the 2003 M model powersailer that "The (X-boat) long centerboard trunk also required a huge opening in the hull, in the most important structural area of the boat (as well as creating a very large drag problem. See Performance)". Actually, they were/are right. It is very hard to attain a continuity of structure even over a moulded-in slot like the X has. There is no depth of floor (that's structural floor, not "sole") over the slot, leading to a weaker area transversely in that region.

Except you forget that the Mac26x has the inner water ballast tank structure which is a boat within a boat. There is so much structure at the centerboard trunk that this structure is used for one of two compression poles. Believe me there is no possibility of flexing on the centerline. I know that from liner cracks which were expected by the manufacturer to show after a few years. None on the important structural area. Furthermore, the only reason centerboards are on centerline is because of race rules. Seriously, designers and owners didn't care to put daggers and swing style centerboards on centerline because it was more expensive. Only race rules meant to slow down the introduction of retractable fins inticed designers to put them on center line. That is my conclusion. I mean seriously.

You say "Likely owing to dealer/distributor influence, MacGregor Yachts company added 300 lbs of solid ballast to the M in the form of resin in the water ballast tank and additional solid weight around the centerboard trunk. This is not unlike what fixed keel boat owners do when they find their vessel is a tippy cruiser. " When someone dicovers his keel boat is "tippy" ("Tender" would be the correct term for that, BTW), they add ballast as colse to the bottom of the keel as possible. Inside ballast is a waste of time for curing a tender boat, as it is too close to the CG to do any good. It does have its place, but that is not it.

Oh yes, I have been here before. Perhaps I can reword that. You may not be aware that Spray used concrete ballast. So did Oracle, the great tall ship that does the Swiftsure every year and is used for Canadian naval training, until just recently. What Perry questioned in his review of the TP52s and I now question is should the CG ever extend to a point outside of the hull? I am also stating that in the computer age, there is no reason, outside of a design flaw, that the boat should not float on her lines the first time she is spashed. For hundreds of years, bilge and external ballast and bowsprits have been viewed as corrections to the design. Case in point - look at the J100. No sprit. Computer Aided Design in her. I saw this Saturday. 110,000

You say "When the Max26x was introduced her design took advantage of a relatively unproven rigging invention that reduces or eliminates the need for weight on an external foil or inside the hull. " Actually, a roller-furling headsail does not do anything for or against needing ballast, or a fin for windward work. What you have said is akin to saying "Having cruise control reduces or eliminates the need for four wheels on a car", or vice versa, even.

I am chatting about reefing and furling. Reefing and furling have profound impacts on stability. But there is more that I didn't mention yet on the web site. Freeboard impacts stability as well. The more freeboard the more stable.

Well, I have had my fill of trying to read your website for a second time (yes, I did once read the whole thing), so I will leave it at that.

good points all of them. I will see how to clean it up.

I would like to say that my position here is not antagonistic, I jut happen to have been designing boats for 20 years, of all types, and have never read so much misinformation as appears on your site and in your posts to this forum.

Steve

Come on Steve, you are going to have to do better than that. Have you never read Boldger. Lets go over the myths Bolger first identified in a Wooden Boat article.

#1 - CENTERBOARDS COMPROMISE SEAWORTHINESS
#2 - THE LOWER THE FREEBOARD THE FASTER THE SAILBOAT
#3 - A FAST SAILBOAT CAN NOT ALSO MOTOR FAST.
#4 - OCEAN CRUISING SAILBOATS MUST BE LARGER THAN 60 FEET.
#5 - KEELED SAILBOATS ARE THE MOST SEAWORTHY OCEAN CRUISERS
#6 WATER BALLAST IS INFERIOR TO OTHER BALLAST
#7 A KEELED SAIL BOAT WILL POINT INTO THE WIND BETTER THAN A CENTER BOARDER
#8 A TALL RIDGED MAST IS BETTER THAN A SHORT BENDING MAST

These are the myths of those with 20 years of boat design experience. They have been in dispute for longer than that. But it is not surprising from a business man's perspective that those outside of the closed circle of the like minded can come up with so much better designs. Multihulls have shown us the way. Lets apply what they learned to monohulls. Do you not think this possible? 17MPH under sail. That is what the Manufacturer claims for the Mac26x.

[woodboat]

They should have recreated the incident if the boat was truly rickety. The Lawyer should have filmed it and used it. I blame the lawyer for that.

[skinny boy]

Actually, the Thunderbirds's are hard chined boats and there are several other boats with hard chines that are raced under PHRF. There is no such restriction in PHRF. In fact PHRF is a "run what you brung" system and this would be counter to the principles of PHRF to not allow a design choice. This is just an outright fabrication on your part Mr. Mighetto.

Please post your insurance policy that allows you to travel the oceans wide. I suspect this is another outright fabrication. Also post your current policy I susect it also is less optimistic than you claim.

You slander people and as soon as someone actually cares or feels you have any influence in the marine industry you will be slapped with a lawsuit. The good and bad, no one takes you serious. It must be frustrating to know you are a joke, or maybe it is great because it is your one claim to fame. One thing I can tell you that slander will come back to haunt you as an expert witness in the future but it is your career to blow so have fun.

I did check out the Sailing Anarchy site and it is clear on there you were forced to leave. You were banned from your home and work sites from posting for a period of time. As far as I can tell, to get banned from there you have to be an extreme idiot. They pretty much take anyone and any conduct.

[mighetto]

Hey I do reserve the right to change my mind. But lets close with the point by point. It is productive.

Quote: Originally Posted by Spaghetto
11-01-2004
Duty calls. .... I will not enjoy this, but what choice do I have? I must go forward with a sense of noblesse oblige.

Something wrong with that?

11-03-2004
It is my understanding that bringing the bulb weight closer to the hull makes the boat faster like bringing the arms of a twirling ice skater in makes the ice skater twirl faster. The better design is to just get rid of the weight on the fin and put it closer to or internal to the hull

Yes I stand by that statement. The notion that the lower the CB the better has to have a limit. At some point lowering the CB is counter productive. The ice skater twirl shows the physics. You can not get around the fact that faster airplanes put weight interntal to the body of the plane and not on the wings. Similarly, weight aloft on a sailboat is considered bad. The same is true for weight below, is suspect.

11-04-2004
My Mac26x is more worthy of an ocean crossing than Esmeralda [a TP52].

By the mathematics this can not be disputed. Esmeralda, the first TP52 we could find with numbers for ratio calulations failed the capsize risk screen and capsize risk ratio. No reputable dealer would broaker Esmeralda as an ocean crossing vessel. A dealer's reputation is unharmed by pointing out that the Mac26x is safe for all waters.

11-12-2004
Ballast is just weight, like {everthing else on the boat and} the hull itself.

Yes, true. Some folks think lead best but those are the same folks that get warm and fuzzy when they overpay. The replacement of concrete with lead in Oracle did nothing for the Canadian tax payers. It did nothing to improve the sailing characteristics of the boat either. Do you really disagree?

11-15-2004
If weight on a long thin foil really makes a boat go faster then why don't powerboats have weight on long thin foils?
if an ice skater wants to twerl faster she brings the weight of her arms in, she does not extend them. This internal ballast rule applies to everything that moves: cars, motorcycles, planes, power boats and yes - even sailboats. Internal ballast is just faster.
An ice yacht theoretically has no limit to its speed owing to the wind she creates just by moving forward. That wind changes the apparent wind ...

Nothing incorrect about that. What are you getting to? I write poorly? Ok perhaps it can be reworked.

12-01-2004
it appears that water ballast should not be pumped side to side but rather remain in both sides to improve windward performance in rough water and the ballast should be low in the boat, like twin keels

Why do you not want the extra momentum provided by full water ballast when in chop. You know that weight will carry you through.

12-02-2004
I spent most of my life power boating
In anycase the notion of pumping water from side to side as defining movable ballast ... is a new notion and an incorrect one when you realize that water ballasted vessels benefit by having ballast on both sides of the vessel owing to the stable forces similar to a twin keel vessel.

Thats an EXCELLENT statement! Nothing wrong there. The important movement (for winning races) is on and off the vessel.

12-16-2004
The wire, folks like to call a backstay, IMO is for motoring.

The dealer has confirmed this. There is enough backwards pointing on the spreaders to eliminate the backstay. However, I like the notion of controling at least the top fraction of my mast with a backstay and the added security of having it. Mine stays. I suppose you fellows convinced me.

12-20-2004
My Mac26x is more TransPacific than probably most of the TP52s.

Yes, she has the numbers for transpacific crossing and was built on the west coast of the US by folks that know about that. Plus we have this positive flotation thing going on. You just are never going to convince a lubber that a boat that can sink when flooded is better than one that can not. It takes the US Sailing trained to buy into that line of thinking

12-20-2004
Americas Cup rules prohibit hollows. This I understand is what prevents multihulls from competing because the space between the hulls is a big hollow. The effect of the hollow, is like that of the spoon. It lifts the hull from the water at speed.

Something wrong with that? Chapmans knows a thing about the spoon test. Do try it.

[And from another website ybw.com]
28/09/2004
The Mac26x is a serious ocean sailboat.
There is nothing in a monohull under 40 foot and under 180,000 US that compares.

Or 280,000 apparently. There are multihulls as fast with features like positive flotation but these do not pass the capsize risk ratio. There is a reason folks in the US move to powerboats from sail. The range of boats from 27 to 37 foot in monohull is crappy. This is because they can not be fast enough to take advantage of modern reporting. So you have a big jump in the acceptable if you stick with monohull. 26 and under (because they can be insured under your home owners insurance) that plane and then 40 foot and something like 200,000. Thats the economics as I see them.

The Church of FOYD is now closed.

But have fun at my expense without me. Hope to ckeck in tomorrow but I have to go to the dentist. It could be bad. Lost a filling. Take Care all

Frank.

[D'ARTOIS]

Yes Woodboat, that should have been done. What surprises me is that the children were trapped in the cabin. And that nobody - apparently - from the party on the boat tried to get the kids out. I can only guess what happenend,
the cockpit had no more space for the children so they had to keep inside the cabin, the lifejackets hindering them to get out.
Strange also that no testimony of the accident is given.
Why I react so strongly on this is that of course first responsibility is with the captain/skipper (according to the law, not to the real situation) but if 8 adults are sitting on the sides of the hull the boat is as stable as a dinghy in the same situation. No begin stability to speak of and no end stability at all. Only the trapped air in the boat kept it from sinking, maybe helped by the double bottom tank that was empty. If that one had been full, the boat had sunk.
A very very sad accident indeed.

In any EEC certified boat the numbers of pax are predicted.

The French had this even before EEC regulations ordered.

[mighetto]

Actually, the Thunderbirds's are hard chined boats and there are several other boats with hard chines that are raced under PHRF. There is no such restriction in PHRF. In fact PHRF is a "run what you brung" system and this would be counter to the principles of PHRF to not allow a design choice. This is just an outright fabrication on your part Mr. Mighetto.

You misread. I was chating about extra chines like are glued to the hulls of ski boats. They are verboten. We of course have a large fleet of T-birds in my sailing club. They love to pick on Mac26x cruisers. Lovely boats BTW.

Please post your insurance policy that allows you to travel the oceans wide. I suspect this is another outright fabrication. Also post your current policy I susect it also is less optimistic than you claim.

Now we are cooking. This is such an appropriate request that I will do it. Give me a day or two. But review http://www.foremost.com/products/family_boat/. Smaller is wonderful. Tbirds will qualify.

You slander people and as soon as someone actually cares or feels you have any influence in the marine industry you will be slapped with a lawsuit. The good and bad, no one takes you serious. It must be frustrating to know you are a joke, or maybe it is great because it is your one claim to fame. One thing I can tell you that slander will come back to haunt you as an expert witness in the future but it is your career to blow so have fun.

I dislike Jim Teeters for his roll in halting production of the most successful cruising sailboat of all time. I do not appologize. I am as kind as I can be and forgiving as well. But this man chose to support a drunk with a prior fellony conviction for reasons that I can say only look dirty. As a management consultant, I am paid to make such judgments. As a captain of a sailboat I have a right to defend the ride. You would do the same. He has never contacted me and I am told he doesn't even know my name. Let it remain that way.

I did check out the Sailing Anarchy site and it is clear on there you were forced to leave. You were banned from your home and work sites from posting for a period of time. As far as I can tell, to get banned from there you have to be an extreme idiot. They pretty much take anyone and any conduct.

This is untrue. Who has said so? I want an actual name so that I can talk about slander. The operators of Sailing Anarchy have never acused me of breaking any rules. Nor have they contacted me about being banned from the site. You are reading the rants of trophy children. Believe me. I choose not to post there because the site pretends to represent anarchists while it in fact represents advertisors - TP52 owners in particular, and probably was started specifically to hype TP52s. It bothers me greatly and I need not the agrevation. So unless you have specifics please lay off this line of posting. Or request that I post on Sailing Anarchy. But take responsibility for doing so. You may find yourself banned.

[Skippy]

Originally Posted by Spaghetto

I object to Brien's implication that I have some how been excluded from Sailing Anarchy or any other forum. This is AFAICT not factual.

Originally Posted by skinny boy

I did check out the Sailing Anarchy site and it is clear on there you were forced to leave. You were banned from your home and work sites from posting for a period of time. As far as I can tell, to get banned from there you have to be an extreme idiot. They pretty much take anyone and any conduct.

"Frank? What the fuck are you doing back here?"

Originally Posted by Editor (of SA)

I banned you, mostly because you didn't do what I asked you to do. So you think posting from your office is clever? Now your office is banned. That's what happens when you try to go around my back. Buh-bye.

Who killed Frank
Mighetto's new looney bin
"Getting the Brits knickers in a twist"

[amolitor]

If the Mac did 17 knots under sail in the real world, it would have a negative PHRF rating, not one in the 200s. Period. Get over it.

The skater analogy you keep using is ludicrous. Yeah, the skater bringing their arms in makes the spin faster. Rotating 90 degrees to make arms (horizontal) analagous to keels (vertical), the Mac should roll over faster. Which is does. Congratulations, you have proven your beloved boat to be prone to spinning over onto its side and throwin everyone in the water.

Obviously you're just a troll posting crazy shit to make people respond to you. If you're under the impression this is not painfully obvious, you should drop it. Of course, you won't, and will ramble on incoherently about it, but that's because you simply won't give up, because you're a sociopath. You lack the normal reaction to 'I am so busted, butt-naked in the snow and everyone knows it' which is to give up, go home, and go find some NEW PEOPLE to try to trick. No, you will keep trying to trick us into thinking you're not merely a troll, and we will continue to watch in wide-eyed wonder as you stand naked all the while insisting you are clothed.

Like all trolls, you thrive on attention, and die when starved of it. Eventually, we will tire of you, and starve you shall. Until then, I shall refute your points when it occurs to me, and mock you for your nakedness.

Cheers!