Seeing eye dogs on Princess...should I cancel?

Charles Fort wrote:

I can think of several reasons to x-no-archive posts.

I'm all ears. Or in this case, eyes. What are good reasons not to archive
informational posts in an information-sharing newsgroup?

What are good reasons to do it permanently and never to have one's information
about cruises available in an archive of a cruise newsgroup?

It's not as if one's personal data is available in the posts. That's what I
think ought to be kept private. I have a very close friend and a close family
member who have been the victims of identity theft, so I think it is wise not
to post personal data, but general cruise information, humor, comments, etc.,
why not?

I think it is more important to be authentic in one's posts, than to have a
"real-sounding" name.

Charles Fort wrote:

AOL screen names can and have been abused.

I agree, but not by someone who uses a "handle" as I do, but by others who post
through remailers, etc.

I post under this "handle" only. If you or anyone else can't HANDLE that it is
my personal choice to remain private in a public forum, and you don't wish to
read anything I have to say, then it is your choice to disregard my posts.

If you know anything at all about me by now, you should know that I value
freedom of choice.

Dogs are not a protected class under the ADA.

Jeff Coudriet wrote in
news:JkcZc.943$Ep4.240@trnddc01:

I kinda wondered about the veracity of that as well...."Hi, this
is Princess, we have 300 African Americans sailing on your
sailing" or whatever. Can't imagine Princess would have called
other passengers and offered them a full refund for what, 10-20
blind people. Hmmmmm....doesn't seem to pass the smell test
somehow.

Jeff



Danni wrote:
I wonder if there is not some violation of the ADA happening
here. It's an Alaska cruise. I'm wondering whether Princess
notified the blind passengers that they wanted to identify them
to other passengers.

That part bothers me. Pointing out a specific group traveling to
the rest of the passengers. Offering money back so that one
doesn't have to travel with "them".






--
----Sagittaria----

"Just think how boring life would be if everyone liked and respected
everyone else."
cmsix wrote in a.s.s.d on 4/17/04

In article , RTCReferee
wrote:

I agree, but not by someone who uses a "handle" as I do, but by
others who post through remailers, etc.

I post under this "handle" only. If you or anyone else can't HANDLE
that it is my personal choice to remain private in a public forum,
and you don't wish to read anything I have to say, then it is your
choice to disregard my posts.

I wonder about your handle because you certainly are not an rtc
"referee". It comes off the tongue as somewhat trollish sounding. I am
not saying at all that you should post your first and last name. I
suggest that in addition to your handle that you sign your post with
your first name. This is a rec. newsgroup and cruises have a very
social aspect. I would rather be discussing cruises with a "John" or
"Jane" than with a cypher.

If you know anything at all about me by now, you should know that I
value freedom of choice.

Then you should not object if someone chooses not to have their posts
archived.

--
Charles

In article , RTCReferee
wrote:

I agree, but not by someone who uses a "handle" as I do, but by
others who post through remailers, etc.

I post under this "handle" only. If you or anyone else can't HANDLE
that it is my personal choice to remain private in a public forum,
and you don't wish to read anything I have to say, then it is your
choice to disregard my posts.

I wonder about your handle because you certainly are not an rtc
"referee". It comes off the tongue as somewhat trollish sounding. I am
not saying at all that you should post your first and last name. I
suggest that in addition to your handle that you sign your post with
your first name. This is a rec. newsgroup and cruises have a very
social aspect. I would rather be discussing cruises with a "John" or
"Jane" than with a cypher.

If you know anything at all about me by now, you should know that I
value freedom of choice.

Then you should not object if someone chooses not to have their posts
archived.

--
Charles

Answered in line.

Lee Lindquist, posting via newsdawg.com using X-Newsreader: Forte Agent
1.93/32.576 English (American), and posting under the fake email address of
and not archived to rec.travel.cruises wrote:

On 02 Sep 2004 20:28:04 GMT, ando (RTCReferee)
wrote:

There's only one Lee in this newsgroup whose opinion matters to me

Yes, that's true, very true. I have the utmost respect for Lee S.

Feel free to not read my posts.

I feel free. However, if they are there when I read RTC, I won't make a point
of holding my nose and passing them by. I may even archive them. ;-)

Perhaps one of the other AOL folks can help you set up a kill-file, if you're
unable to do it on your own.

Thanks for the suggestion, but I am quite capable of doing it on my own.
I won't likely be killfiling you, though, as the free flow of information is
important to me. Journalism background, among other things. Besides, you
might make a comment about Florida hurricanes, and I am interested in that
subject, which affects people I care about.

I have been posting here 'no-archive' since at least 1997.
How astute of you to pick up on it, after only seven years.

Sorry, just learned about it in the past couple of days. I don't know who you
think I am but apparently you are wrong about that, too.

I came across rec.travel.cruises accidentally a year and half or two ago when I
Googled something. I posted for the first time less than a year ago. What you
have said or not said in the past years was not something I would have ever
followed. I do recall something about your being a "snob". So with two Lees
on RTC, I thought of you as "snob" Lee and Lee Schwartzberg as "sharp,
intelligent" Lee, the one who writes absolutely fabulous cruise reviews.

I didn't know who you were or what mattered to you or in fact even paid much
attention to you until just this week when you started attacking me, most
likely because you didn't appreciate my comment about George Leppla not taking
the time to confer with Princess before making some factually incorrect
comments.
I gather you think it's OK for TA's to spread misinformation if they are a
buddy of yours. Well, sorry, I think TA's should be held to a higher standard
here, since people reading the newsgroup tend to think TA's know their stuff.


Anyway, "thanks" for all your advice, but I will likely not be taking it.

In article , RTCReferee
wrote:

I'm all ears. Or in this case, eyes. What are good reasons not to archive
informational posts in an information-sharing newsgroup?

Privacy reasons are one. If you go back over someones postings for many
years you can learn a lot of information about them.

Another, people change their mind and opinions. Some people don't want
someone coming back ten years later and bringing up something they said
then when they were in tenth grade, (just an example) that they could
very well disagree with now.

--
Charles

In article , RTCReferee
wrote:

I do recall something about your being a "snob". So with two Lees
on RTC, I thought of you as "snob" Lee and Lee Schwartzberg as "sharp,
intelligent" Lee, the one who writes absolutely fabulous cruise reviews.

This might be an example of why someone does not want their postings
archived. The person who posted that Lee S. was a snob might have
changed their mind several years later. However their postings accusing
Lee S. of being a snob are archived on the record.

--
Charles

Charles fort wrote:

wrote:

I do recall something about your being a "snob". So with two Lees
on RTC, I thought of you as "snob" Lee and Lee Schwartzberg as "sharp,
intelligent" Lee, the one who writes absolutely fabulous cruise reviews.

This might be an example of why someone does not want their postings
archived. The person who posted that Lee S. was a snob might have
changed their mind several years later. However their postings accusing
Lee S. of being a snob are archived on the record.

yes, Lindsay called him a snob, but I considered that just a playful reply.

Lee signed off as "/snob, 2" if the post following my reply is accurate:
The reason I saved the comment, (saved without headers), is because he was on
the same side of the issue as we are with regards to wanting a higher quality
cruise experience, more like it was when we started cruising, and we are also
willing to pay somewhat more to regain that experience.

I don't take "snob" to be a negative reference, just a defining one.
I was simply trying to differentiate the two Lee's in my mind at the time.
I can't imagine that a comment as innocuous as that would be a reason to not
archive one's posts.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: re; Has the quality of cruises declined?
From: Lee Lindquist A /A
Date: Sun, Feb 29, 2004 2:29 PM
Message-id:

On 29 Feb 2004 20:53:15 GMT, ando (RTCReferee)
wrote:

(Linsifer) wrote:


rtcreferee wrote:

To be perfectly frank, and not politically correct, we also would prefer the
prices be somewhat higher so that there are fewer affinity groups and yes,
fewer young children aboard.

Snob.

I'd like to see the quality go back to what it was 5-8 years
ago, and I'd be happy to pay 20-50% more.

/snob, 2

(Jim) wrote:

From: ando(RTCReferee) SNIP
It is not fair for any of us to say to someone else that there is no
reason for them to cancel or to take the cruise if it is not what they
want to do. It must be their own decision and they ought to feel free to
make that choice on their own and not to be judged by it.
SNIP
==============

It is(fair) when the OP asks everyone "What does the group think? Jim

It's a matter of degree, to me.

To say there is NO reason to cancel is reminds me too much of sayings like
"enough said!" or other things intended to cut off discussion, as if there is
no other reasonable choice that a person could or should make.

I prefer to read reasons pro and con and then let the OP decide based on those
various reasons.