Charles is right on the money when he says:
If you don't want discussion on the GGC's then don't announce or post
about them to the newsgroup.
snip
Speaking for myself I discuss it even though I have not been on one
because potentialy I would go on one. That is enough reason for me but
even if someone never intends to go, they have the right to post about it
snip

It's always amusing when regular posters chime in about a GGC and get shot down
because either they haven't been on one, haven't contributed to the discussion
until that particular point, or are perceived as not being interested in
booking now or in the future (I'll take one of those crystal balls, please). I
think this attitude feeds into the belief that the GGC's have become cliqueish
and not very welcoming of new people. One review after last year's GGC
specifically addressed this by saying that they didn't feel particularly
welcome or part of the group.

What is really the issue is that some valid points are being raised that people
don't want to hear. Sorry, but the GGC isn't sacrosanct and there is nothing
wrong with newsgroup oversight of the "committee."

Either the GGC is an RTC group cruise or not. If it is, then *any* newsgroup
poster is entitled to their say. If it isn't then discussion should be limited
to the yahoo group and the GGC should be redefined as the yahoo group cruise.

Shushing posters simply because you don't like the issue they raise sends a
clear message that "RTC GGC" has become an oxymoron. Saying that if you aren't
involved in the discussion from the beginning then you aren't entitled to
jumping in when you have something valid to contribute is, IMHO, equivalent to
saying if you don't book early then don't bother booking closer to departure
because you obviously weren't interested and now *neither are we*. That doesn't
sound very welcoming to me.

I'll finish this post by saying what I've consistently said in the past: why on
earth is everything so set in stone? Is this a newsgroup cruise, or a committe
cruise? When there is sufficient disagreement within the newsgroup on key
issues, why do the committees circle the wagons and dig in? What is SO wrong
with stepping back, sifting through the retoric and seeing the valid points
buried within and reconsidering? Why NOT reopen bidding since it does appear
that those that bid were at an advantage? There are already 2 major group
cruises early in 2005 on which many of the core GGC cruisers are already
booked. Would it be SO awful if the next GGC were delayed in order to address
the concerns that have been raised? The newsgroup won't suddenly disappear off
of usenet. I actually think the next GGC would be strengthened if it was
delayed a bit more, maybe even put off until 2006. It would add "Great" back
into the concept by building in a sense of anticipation that has been lacking
since the early ones. If memory serves it was 18 months or more between the
original concept took root in the newsgroup and the first GGC. By the time we
all boarded the excitement built to a crescendo! There's nothing to get
excited about other than "it's the GGC." So what?

Warren


remove the drink to email Y