In article
,
D Ball wrote:

On Mar 12, 7:57*pm, -hh wrote:
"George Leppla" wrote:

You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics.

NWBL made those statements, so go take it up with him.

-hh

No, hh, you made the accusations, and I repeat verbatim the quote
George took from your post:

"The broader issue is ...as NWBL has mentioned ... that some
individuals who had an affiluation unfortunately ended up
misrepresenting a product due to their lapse of judgement in failing
to adequately disclose."

So substantiate your charges or withdraw them.


What we have here (overall) is the same discussion I had in
Journalism ethics 101 back when they actually still tried to teach
journalistic ethics.
I think what the original Upset Posters were concerned about was the
fact that some posters got something of interest that others did not
from RCI. The UPs think that those posters should disclose this much
like a journalist should disclose getting free tickets from a sports
team or a politician should disclose getting a free golf junket from a
lobbyist.
Personally, with one or two possible exceptions, I think this is
bunk. There is no ethical or other requirement for disclosure of these
kinds of things unless one is holding themselves out as some kind of
source of information. So, for most of us, I don't see a problem. For
those who run websites claiming to offer unbiased information on
cruising, then there is a duty to at least acknowledge that they have
participated so that the user can decide for themselves if this taints
the website's credibility.