If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
"-hh" wrote in message ... Okay Ms. Diana Ball: You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely ***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior to the event. I look forward to you providing proof of that claim. And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him. *That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said. Huh? You ask her to prove it, and then say if she proves it you were only speaking in generalities? And that another poster lied, and you believed him? To quote the distinguished Judge Chamberlain Haller from My Cousin Vinnie... "Are you on drugs?" --Tom |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
On Mar 12, 8:58*pm, -hh wrote:
D Ball wrote: hh, you have crossed the line by resorting to ad hominem attack and calling me a criminal... Since I identified no individual whatsoever, pray tell how can this be? Just as frightening is the intensity with which you continue this harangue--it's truly disproportionate to reality. You've been "harangued" by a mere 4 posts discussing some generalities of ethics, when you yourself have made twice as many posts in this thread? Gosh, it seems that you're afraid of ethical behavior for some reason. You don't have a shred of evidence to back up your charges that any RTC "Royal Champion" has compromised any standard, Are you claiming that absolutely *every* RTC did properly disclose? Murphy's Law suggests otherwise. *More to the point, another poster did made a statement to the effect that *someone* did fail to properly disclose. Personally, I don't frankly care who this might have been, since I was merely talking in generalities of ethics. Current communications models are based on digital messages that reach global populations in seconds and then hang around indefinitely in cyberspace for all to access in the future. So just as your behavior is now memorialized for all to see and judge, businesses understand that "word of mouth" marketing programs must adapt to take full advantage of state of the art "word of mouth" communications models, whether text messaging, YouTube videos, viral emails, online discussion communities or the like. And I stand behind what I've written, 100%. Word of mouth marketing has been around forever. I'm confident you have offered and followed the advice, "Look beyond advertising. Seek personal references before you [buy, hire or act]." You have certainly offered your advice and opinions about cruises and a multitude of other consumer products via Usenet, and I assume you did so to be helpful and provide your fellow man with the postive and negative views of an experienced consumer, which is the concept at the heart of word of mouth marketing. In fact, as the educated consumer you like to portray, I'm sure you have done one or more of the following: used tendered coupons, sought and taken advantage of discounts, eaten the free cereal and tried the free shampoo delivered with your Sunday newspaper, asked for and received price concessions in connection with the purchase of goods and services, accepted a free appetizer or dessert, inquired about the possibility of cruise cabin upgrade, asked for an airline ticket or cruise fare reduction to reflect price drops since purchase, accepted a 2-for-1 offer, accepted an accessory or upgrade "thrown in the deal" or received an invitation by Big Hotel Chain to spend two nights as their guest at Brand New Property. I just got one of those from Hyatt. So if I go, and I post my review to TripAdvisor saying, "I went on a free preview weekend, and here's the good, bad and ugly about this Hyatt," how is that any different than me talking with my husband, neighbor or work colleague about the free box of cereal that came with the paper and saying, "Hey, did you try the free box of Kashi? I thought it was pretty good. I liked the flavor. I like the nutritional composition. The texture wasn't to my liking, though." What's different is, by reviewing the Hyatt weekend on TripAdvisor, my online word of mouth about that property has the potential to reach thousands vs. the tiny number of people who may hear my take on the cereal. Smart move on Hyatt's part. What's not different about the Hyatt deal, the cereal box or the RCI cruise is, the free offers are just that--offers. They don't come with Terms & Conditions, quid pro quos or strings, direct or implied. Why is there no tit for tat? Because word of mouth marketing is premised on the candid review of the experienced user--we're all more influenced by critical peer review than we are by paid advertising. See: *you already know the answer for why it is it not 'tit for tat': the presumption is that a critical peer review is more independent in its objectivity than paid advertising. And really, if you don't believe that is the theory behind it, don't take my word for it, go look it up in any Marketing 101 textbook. Unfortunately, we weren't discussing marketing, but ethics. So, here we are, back to square one: 1. RCI's savvy marketing strategists say, why invent our own online communities (ala Obama), let's tap into online communities of cruisers that already exist, identify people who actively participate in those communities and say to them, we'd love to show you our new product, come take a look. 2. It's undisputed that's all RCI said...no strings attached. 3. It's also undisputed--actually, I should say, a proven fact by archived posts--that every RTCer invited to the Liberty preview fully disclosed that fact in their posts about that event. Ditto in the buzz about the invitation-only reveal in Manhattan. Then your beef is not with me, but the individual who claimed otherwise. In sum, hh, nothing you have ranted about applies to the Royal Champion program within the RTC social network. You are now faced with a choice. I trust you will figure it out and do the right thing. Diana Okay Ms. Diana Ball: *You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely ***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior to the event. *I look forward to you providing proof of that claim. And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him. *That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said. I hope that you can now do the same, by standing 100% behind what you have said too. FWIW, because I've encountered instances like this before, I'm obligated to require a deadline for you to provide your proof, so that you can't ignore it forever: *you have until 0000 ZULU, 31 March 2009, and please, no whining about any of this being unfair: *no one forced you to make the claims that you did. -hh- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - hh, Unlike cowards and trolls, all of the RTC "Royal Champions" post using their real name and put their personal character on the line each and every time they post. We are real people, and you can't blithely accuse real people of crime, unethical behavior, being "ass- kissers," etc., without consequence. You will get your due. Unbridled arrogance and refusal to take responsibility for your own actions have been the fall of many a man. Diana |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
On Mar 12, 11:05*pm, 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. Substantiation: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/ c96ebae19f1e842b?hl=en "To be fair, people did get burned, and it was because of lax standards by some people posting "reviews," or being less than clear as to why they were advocating a given company. Or at least disclosing their status, as to provide context to their statements." So upon what basis do I have to believe that NWLB is a liar, and you're telling the truth? -hh |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
"Tom K" wrote:
"-hh" wrote in message Okay Ms. Diana Ball: *You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely ***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior to the event. *I look forward to you providing proof of that claim. And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him. *That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said. Huh? You ask her to prove it, and then say if she proves it you were only speaking in generalities? She specifically accused me of calling her out, when I did no such thing. Please go back and re-read what I've said and look to see where I ever mentioned her by name. *And that another poster lied, and you believed him? Incorrect: its obvious that **someone** is wrong, but it hasn't been clearly determined who. Based on the situation and what has been said, its my opinion that Diana will have a significantly harder time proving she's right and NWLB wrong, because of the nature of the statements made: To show "one person out of many" is invariably a lot easier to prove than "absolutely none out of many". -hh |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
D Ball wrote:
hh, Unlike cowards and trolls, all of the RTC "Royal Champions" post using their real name and put their personal character on the line each and every time they post. Claiming that I'm anonymous is factually wrong (hint: try "WHOIS") We are real people, and you can't blithely accuse real people of crime, unethical behavior, being "ass-kissers," etc., without consequence. You will get your due. Unbridled arrogance and refusal to take responsibility for your own actions have been the fall of many a man. If you are so offended, then I suggest that you put your money where your mouth is and go talk to your lawyer about your legal options. In the meantime, I do note that instead of you providing any substantiation for your claim, you've instead decided to use your time to attack the request to substantiate...a refusal to take responsibility for your own actions. Thus, *your* own choice of actions impacts *your* credibility. -hh |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
"-hh" wrote in message ... On Mar 12, 11:05 pm, 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. Substantiation: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.travel.cruises/msg/ c96ebae19f1e842b?hl=en "To be fair, people did get burned, and it was because of lax standards by some people posting "reviews," or being less than clear as to why they were advocating a given company. Or at least disclosing their status, as to provide context to their statements." So upon what basis do I have to believe that NWLB is a liar, and you're telling the truth? NWLB is a relative newbie here, and rarely posts anything other than trying to direct people to his website. He's not by any means an RTC long time regular. The 7 of us who went on Liberty, who were long time RTC members, had a public discussion and Google would have all our names. I even have a picture of all of us taken on board. I never met NWLB, he wasn't part of our group, and he's not an RTC regular. I don't count him. --Tom |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
"-hh" wrote in message ... "George Leppla" wrote: You made the accusations, please cite examples and specifics. NWBL made those statements, so go take it up with him. No, I quoted you. You made statements and I asked for specific examples which you can't supply, other than a lame "somebody else said that blah blah blah...." Let me guess... you didn't get invited either. Poor baby. Somebody got something that you didn't. I suggest that you never go on any Royal Caribbean ship ever again! That will show them! -- George Leppla http://www.CruiseMaster.com Cruise Specials Weblog http://cruisemaster.typepad.com/my_weblog/ May 10, 2009 ALASKA http://www.cruisemaster.com/moagc4.htm January 10, 2009 Southern Caribbean http://www.cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm October 16, 2010 OASIS http://www.motherofallgroupcruises.com |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
"-hh" wrote in message ... "Tom K" wrote: "-hh" wrote in message Okay Ms. Diana Ball: You've unequivocally asserted that absolutely ***EVERY*** RTC'er disclosed, fully and satisfactorily, and 100% prior to the event. I look forward to you providing proof of that claim. And FWIW, even if you are successful in proving that, since I was only speaking in generalities, all you would have proven is that another poster lied, and that I erroneously believed him. *That* is why I stand 100% behind what I have said. Huh? You ask her to prove it, and then say if she proves it you were only speaking in generalities? She specifically accused me of calling her out, when I did no such thing. Please go back and re-read what I've said and look to see where I ever mentioned her by name. And that another poster lied, and you believed him? Incorrect: its obvious that **someone** is wrong, but it hasn't been clearly determined who. Based on the situation and what has been said, its my opinion that Diana will have a significantly harder time proving she's right and NWLB wrong, because of the nature of the statements made: To show "one person out of many" is invariably a lot easier to prove than "absolutely none out of many". -hh As I said in another post, 7 of us went, not counting NWLB who's not an RTC regular. We had a public discussion here. Other than the TA's and trolls who post here, there really aren't that many people around here anymore. Maybe another 10-20 long time regulars, a few dozen infrequent or newbie posters. Even some of the 7 who went have kind of faded away. RTC doesn't have imaginary thousands who post here. We know who posts here regularly and we know who went. I have a photo of who went. --Tom |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Cruise Critic Censorship
-hh As I said in another post, 7 of us went, not counting NWLB who's not an RTC regular. *We had a public discussion here. *Other than the TA's and trolls who post here, there really aren't that many people around here anymore. Maybe another 10-20 long time regulars, a few dozen infrequent or newbie posters. *Even some of the 7 who went have kind of faded away. *RTC doesn't have imaginary thousands who post here. *We know who posts here regularly and we know who went. *I have a photo of who went. --Tom- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - When we were all first invited we really had no idea why or how. But we went, had a great time and discussed it here and on CC when we got back. Then some of us went to the Oasis reveal in NYC and again discussed it when we got back. That's probably what they are looking for, regular folk who cruise and aren't afraid to discuss it. Using their real names!!!! Unfortunately I don't get to cruise as much as a I used to due to school and sports scheduling but am just as enthusiastic about it as ever. Right now I have to live vicarously thru the rtcer's Sheree |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cruise Critic logging in problem | Tony | Cruises | 4 | September 6th, 2007 02:47 AM |
Caribbean Princess review on Cruise Critic | Paul Hoffman | Cruises | 26 | June 16th, 2006 04:15 PM |
Caribbean Princess review on Cruise Critic | Surfer E2468 | Cruises | 0 | June 15th, 2006 09:29 PM |
Cruise Critic Reviews | Everyboysmomma | Cruises | 12 | April 18th, 2006 12:31 AM |
Cruise Critic down again... | Rex | Cruises | 9 | March 26th, 2006 03:59 AM |