Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > Cruise Lines (Mainstream) > Royal Caribbean International
Register Forgot Password?

View Poll Results: Should they have been banned?
Yes, for sure! 100 91.74%
No, they should be allowed to keep being whiners to mooch discounts 9 8.26%
Voters: 109. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #271 (permalink)  
Old June 7th, 2008, 09:22 AM
Dave the Wave's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St Petersburg, Florida
Posts: 6,349
Send a message via MSN to Dave the Wave Send a message via Yahoo to Dave the Wave
Default

This is the site referred to. I go there frequently and there is complete list of all the overboards. Carnival is by far in the lead.
__________________
Dave the Wave AKA- Diamond Dave


Read and post cruise reviews

Song of America Dec '90
Starship Majestic May '89
Sovereign X 5
Majesty Jul '01
Enchantment X 4
Regal Empress Dec '02
Sensation '04
Mariner May '07 April '08
Grandeur Feb '08
Inspiration Oct '08
Radiance of the Seas Oct '10
  #272 (permalink)  
Old June 7th, 2008, 09:36 AM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave the Wave
This is the site referred to. I go there frequently and there is complete list of all the overboards. Carnival is by far in the lead.
Not to high jack this thread. I saw you were on the Grandeur. How did you like her? I'll be on her for the first time in Jan 09.
  #273 (permalink)  
Old June 7th, 2008, 09:43 AM
Dave the Wave's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: St Petersburg, Florida
Posts: 6,349
Send a message via MSN to Dave the Wave Send a message via Yahoo to Dave the Wave
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FL_Cruiser64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave the Wave
This is the site referred to. I go there frequently and there is complete list of all the overboards. Carnival is by far in the lead.
Not to high jack this thread. I saw you were on the Grandeur. How did you like her? I'll be on her for the first time in Jan 09.
I guess "edited" disappeared...

Grandeur is great!! Go see the photo galleries from my fellow cruisemates and I that were on board in February.
__________________
Dave the Wave AKA- Diamond Dave


Read and post cruise reviews

Song of America Dec '90
Starship Majestic May '89
Sovereign X 5
Majesty Jul '01
Enchantment X 4
Regal Empress Dec '02
Sensation '04
Mariner May '07 April '08
Grandeur Feb '08
Inspiration Oct '08
Radiance of the Seas Oct '10
  #274 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 01:41 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 971
Default

Is there any videos of Mrs Moron on utube? Bob
  #275 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 01:51 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 971
Default

Is there any videos of Mrs Moron on utube? Bob
  #276 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 01:52 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 971
Default

Sorry for the double post.
  #277 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 02:34 AM
Junior Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 15
Default Here's the completely one sided article

  #278 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 08:14 AM
thecruisequeen's Avatar
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 11,287
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ragtiki2005
Is there any videos of Mrs Moron on utube? Bob
Nope don't see any on youtube.
__________________
CQ's Cruise Resume

Vision Of The Seas
Independence Of The Seas
Allure Of The Seas
Carnival Breeze
Oasis Of The Seas x3
Liberty Of The Seas x4
Freedom Of The Seas x3
Navigator Of The Seas x2
Explorer Of The Seas x2
Voyager Of The Seas
Enchantment Of The Seas
Rhapsody Of The Seas
Majesty Of The Seas
Monarch Of The Seas
Sovereign Of The Seas
Celebrity Mercury
Carnival Victory
  #279 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 05:13 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 445
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave the Wave
Quote:
Originally Posted by FL_Cruiser64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave the Wave
This is the site referred to. I go there frequently and there is complete list of all the overboards. Carnival is by far in the lead.
Not to high jack this thread. I saw you were on the Grandeur. How did you like her? I'll be on her for the first time in Jan 09.
I guess "edited" disappeared...

Grandeur is great!! Go see the photo galleries from my fellow cruisemates and I that were on board in February.
Thanks for the feedback but what is
Quote:
I guess "edited" disappeared...
  #280 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 05:30 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 445
Default

say on topic:

Here is the gossip writer who did a friendship deal by putting the Morans into the news:

Code:
LawMan,
I can understand your point of view.[b] However, my story told BOTH sides.[/b] Re-read it - it's a very balanced.

That being said, I have to ask: Why continue the attacks against the Morans? Aren't there better things to do?

Story is done. Over. Move on.

Best,
Anita[quote]

Both sides? Right. Putting a statement of RCI in the middle of an article slanted to trash the company and essentially reducing the importance of such statement to nothing and rather focusing on the statements of professional scammers...yep. Good one. 

It is not important to attack the Morans. It takes a lousy few minutes a day. It is easy to attack them. Lots of things to find. They put themselves in the news. And yes it is fun, because we don't like professional scammers. You and the Morans attacked unjustly a company who is providing services to me. I buy their product and I like their product. I can trash and attack the Morans. They are fair game and so is Anita Durnham-Potter who supports the Morans. Your right to trash RCI or any other company and the Morans right to trash RCI and other companies and to defraud them make you all fair game.

As a matter of fact I haven't even started yet. But I won't bring Paul into any trouble here so I will use my own servers.

A nice little research page on the Morans and her friends. Yummi!

The story is only done if you come up with your promised follow up which essentially should be a reversal of your previous article.

Until then, game is on.

 LOL [/quote]
  #281 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 06:39 PM
glgolfer's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 142
Default

fl-cruiser64: Where will that be? I want to keep up with what you find and report.
I saw the "balanced" statement. Provided one of the best laughs I've had for a long time. When you ignore the preponderance of evidence to take the word of one individual is very telling.
  #282 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 08:33 PM
Junior Member
Passenger
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 13
Default

Where do we go to follow this? Count me in.
  #283 (permalink)  
Old June 8th, 2008, 11:29 PM
Junior Member
Beginner
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Already Gone
Where do we go to follow this? Count me in.
Me too!
  #284 (permalink)  
Old June 9th, 2008, 11:51 AM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,900
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

FL-Cruiser

So far, all I see is a lot of name-calling and leading people on with unsubstantiated claims about some kind of proprietary knowledge of.... something. I don't even understand what it is you claim to have.

You will notice almost all of our regular readers have left this thread. It ceased being informative or even interesting in terms of presenting any new perspectives a long time ago.

What Brenda Moran did in any OTHER case isn't relevent to Anita's story, and she had no reason to look into, or even care about Brenda Moran's car history. It doesn't have any bearing on the circumstances of her article. Anita's story is that RCI chose to compensate her (which means they agree they found her complaints to be valid), but they banned her after she refused to take down a post in which she boasted about the compensation she received. That's the story - where is the error in that?

Critics of Anita Potter, and other journalists, who say there is "proof" of Moran's scamming should be living up to the same journalistic standards they are decrying. No true journalist would ever say they have "proof" someone is a scammer unless they could produce legal papers showing she has been convicted of scamming (or at the very least, arrested). Furthermore, to say the journalists are in collusion with her in a scheme is also egregious lying. It implies there was a conspiracy to deceive and receive ill-gotten gains by doing so. Where is there ANY proof of that?

I agree with Anita - get over it already. This is beyond beating a dead horse, it is trying to beat it beyond recognition so people forget what the original article said. Plus you are making very serious, unsubstantiated claims based on "facts" you haven't been able to produce.

As far as I can see - you are using the same tactics as Moran yourself. Making up grievances and airing them in public in an attempt to embarass someone into submission. Your claims are exactly as unfounded as you claim Moran's were, and you are doing exactly what she would do - using a public message board ad nauseum solely to get people's attention.

What I see is just another Brenda Moran - same tactics. Just a different target.
  #285 (permalink)  
Old June 9th, 2008, 07:51 PM
Junior Member
Beginner
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6
Default

While I agree that the issue on the story has been put aside for comments on Ms Moran, here are my observations on the poor reporting from the original story:

Anita chose to accept Brenda's claim that "their stateroom had a plumbing problem that ended up with sewage all over the bathroom that overflowed onto the room’s carpet". A quick check of the review on Cruise Critic that Anita referenced would have shown the written report was somewhat different.

On the issue of RCL asking her to remove the negative post, the story appears to present Brenda's claim as fact, using you as some level of support by giving another example. RCL's denial is mentioned, but the impression I am left with is that Anita clearly believes Brenda. Certainly within her prerogative , but not neutral reporting.

I think any reasonable person would conclude that RCL was out of line if this was the only story they read. In comparison, the follow-up piece in the Cleveland paper seemed to me to be far more balanced. It didn't clearly make either party out to be in the wrong. Seems like a decent example of reporting rather than editorializing.

If nothing else, Anita ignored comments about the discrepancy in the review and Brenda's story to her about the bathroom problem. I would have had a lot of respect for her if she had simply said, "there appears to be some modification in the degree of inconvenience" or something along those lines. To ignore it makes me feel she is biased. But hey, that's only my opinion and it's worth no more than Anita's.

Brenda said she was banned because of the negative review and RCL says that is not why. A classic "he said - she said", but Anita's story certainly didn't leave it at that.

I take your comment "Anita's story is that RCI chose to compensate her (which means they agree they found her complaints to be valid), but they banned her after she refused to take down a post in which she boasted about the compensation she received. That's the story - where is the error in that?" as a clear indication that the story gave a one-sided slant that you accepted. It may be true, but where is the proof?

All of this aside, I agree that Ms. Moran has drawn a lot of attention to herself. Some of it is deserved and some isn't. But she went public and is paying the price for that. Having seen many of her posts over time on more than one web forum, I have difficulty accepting her statement that she is just trying to help people, however irrelevant that may be.
  #286 (permalink)  
Old June 9th, 2008, 11:00 PM
Senior Member
First Mate
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 445
Default

Hope you don't mind if I disagree on a few things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
FL-Cruiser
So far, all I see is a lot of name-calling and leading people on with unsubstantiated claims about some kind of proprietary knowledge of.... something. I don't even understand what it is you claim to have.
I do believe links were provided to several claims just not the Saturn or Verizon story. Plus it it really not any proprietary knowledge, just using the availability of court documents and a request of documentation between companies which is granted to anybody under federal law. The only question is how much I can make available on the internet. But the basic information is available for everybody and anybody - not just FL_Cruiser64.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
You will notice almost all of our regular readers have left this thread. It ceased being informative or even interesting in terms of presenting any new perspectives a long time ago.
I didn't notice since I really do not know who all the regulars are. But the thread seems still be read. But I believe it is anybody's choice to read (if the thread is still there) or contribute (if it is still open). Who exactly reads it (regulars or not), I do not know. You do. I take your word for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
What Brenda Moran did in any OTHER case isn't relevent to Anita's story, and she had no reason to look into, or even care about Brenda Moran's car history. It doesn't have any bearing on the circumstances of her article. Anita's story is that RCI chose to compensate her (which means they agree they found her complaints to be valid), but they banned her after she refused to take down a post in which she boasted about the compensation she received. That's the story - where is the error in that?
I do believe it is of utmost importance what people do in other cases and with other companies. It establishes a pattern and therefore undermines or strengthens the credibility of the accuser. I believe it is and was Anita's duty to check the Moran's out prior to simply doing a friendship deal. She used an internet platform to further an agenda without checking into this case or the history of the accusers.

It is also a basic mistake to simply assume that just because RCI at one point or another compensated them for some problems that they agreed with all complaints. For corporations it is often enough much cheaper to just throw a couple hundred bucks towards false claims rather than going to court and pay their own high priced lawyers extraordinary sums which essentially could not be recovered. Many companies do that. And this is exactly the loophole for people like Brenda Moran.

This quote of yours is quite disturbing
Quote:
but they banned her after she refused to take down a post in which she boasted about the compensation she received. That's the story - where is the error in that?
May I remind you that it was Anita's goal in her article to have the impression that RCI banned the Morans for an internet posting.
Have you overlooked RCI's statement?
Quote:
Having concluded that we are unable to meet the expectations of the Morans, we have told them that they would be best served by sailing with another company.”
Is that statement worth so little? I guess Anita was successful with some.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
Critics of Anita Potter, and other journalists, who say there is "proof" of Moran's scamming should be living up to the same journalistic standards they are decrying. No true journalist would ever say they have "proof" someone is a scammer unless they could produce legal papers showing she has been convicted of scamming (or at the very least, arrested). Furthermore, to say the journalists are in collusion with her in a scheme is also egregious lying. It implies there was a conspiracy to deceive and receive ill-gotten gains by doing so. Where is there ANY proof of that?
I really do believe that a variety of posters came up with a lot of good links and evidence. They are just being totally overlooked by Anita (journalist is not a word I would chose for her) and her friends. Proof for other issues were given. Yet, those supporting Brenda Moran are holding onto Brenda Moron's word and sell opinion as facts.

Anita's article was blindly copied over - from one site to another and some of these sites while not related use the same writers and/or contributors. I believe Anita can tell you more about that, right Anita? There is really not that many writers who hold onto that story as Anita has produced - just some sites. One of the links in this thread also leads you to a newspaper and that writer made at least the effort to check Brenda Moran's past and environment (retired cop claim and neighbors).

In regards to scammer: You don't have to be arrested to be a professional scammer. If you are arrested and convicted you are a felon convicted of fraud. So we would switch from professional scammer to con or ex-con. But nobody has ever claimed that, not even I.

The only claim by the way I made was that Anita and Brenda conspired. As evidence I used a link in which Brenda claims that she and Anita are friends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
I agree with Anita - get over it already. This is beyond beating a dead horse, it is trying to beat it beyond recognition so people forget what the original article said. Plus you are making very serious, unsubstantiated claims based on "facts" you haven't been able to produce.
Is it beating a dead horse if people beat up on a company over and over and over again? In foren and across the internet?
Is it beating a dead horse when you hear over and over again how can you get the most out of little or nothing even when one suggest 'fraud'? In foren and across the internet?

That is the reality. Yet if someone turns the table it is beating a dead horse. Anita is great in trashing cruise lines, hotels, airlines etc but you know what: she shouldn't be surprised if some of this stuff backfires. As fast as she can trash others, the tables can turn on her.

I thought I made that clear in a couple posts WHY I am so ambitious. So I won't elaborate on that anymore. BTW, this whole Moran thing so far takes really only a few minutes a day out of my life.

Except the Saturn incident I and others have brought proof to every single accusation. And really the only issue for me right now is if I can place certain info on the web or if I have to blank it out. Otherwise, there is and was plenty on info posted.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
As far as I can see - you are using the same tactics as Moran yourself. Making up grievances and airing them in public in an attempt to embarass someone into submission. Your claims are exactly as unfounded as you claim Moran's were, and you are doing exactly what she would do - using a public message board ad nauseum solely to get people's attention.

What I see is just another Brenda Moran - same tactics. Just a different target.
I do?
I did post several reviews about one and the same cruise with totally different takes on it?

I did go for compensation with false claims?

I doubt that.

I don't have to repeat myself with links which were posted on several message boards including this one which has brought proof forth on almost every claim (except Saturn).

And I certainly didn't pick a friend writer to rehash a story several months old and totally disregard the response of a corporation in order to make my friend look good and everybody should feel sorry for her.

So, am I like Brenda Moran? No way. Do I use the same medium? Yes. But the difference between her and I is as clear as day and night. She is/was using false claims to receive benefits and compensation she did not earn with the knowledge that most companies rather settle than to go to court - right or wrong. With these actions she is essentially hurting a product and service I enjoy. Hers and the actions of others like her will essentially reduce the quality of product and service or make it more expensive since cruise lines have to recoup the loss of revenue because of people like Brenda Moran.

And since you don't want me to use this message board to defend a company which essentially at least by subject is a part of this website I will no longer post in this thread and I will stay away from any controversial threads. I will just stick around and see if I can give advice to new RCIers and will read all those threads which are 'beating a dead horse' (i.e. continuously beating up on a company and requesting compensation).

It certainly has become PC across cruise message boards to trash cruise lines even if the cruiser is at fault (evidence: hiphop's thread) and if one goes against the PC it becomes "an unjustified attack".

This thread has not been started by a new bee (so I assume) but a lot of new bees (including myself) have joined. We have contributed with links and evidence yet the accusation of unjust attacks is being laid on me and others. But the statement you made, derived from Anita's article, "the Moran's were banned because of internet postings" has no factual background whatsoever. As a matter of fact the statement of RCI proves totally the opposite. But that too goes against message boards PC.

Just another little tidbit. Ever wondered how I know that the Morans even had a Saturn before they switched to Huyndai? That alone shows that I and others (can't take the credit alone) have done more research than Anita.

With that I will leave this thread and resign myself to threads in which casual questions are being asked. For those who are interested in the outcome can e-mail me (because the website will go up and yes Anita, you too will have a section in it).

But I also thank you Paul for keeping this thread alive for such a long time. While I may disagree with you on some issues this action (well in that case non-action) puts you above other message board owners/moderators.

With that I will resign from this thread.
  #287 (permalink)  
Old June 10th, 2008, 09:42 AM
Snoozeman's Avatar
Moderator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Bosque County, Texas
Posts: 5,430
Send a message via AIM to Snoozeman Send a message via Yahoo to Snoozeman
Default

This has been a very informative thread for sure. Everything from the banning of the Morans to the reporting of it and journalism. Lot's of great points made by many. Thanks to everyone who contributed.
__________________
Ray McDonald / Snoozeman

My Personal Cruise Blog: My Cruise Blog

Future Cruises:
Carnival Triumph-Caribbean-7/28/2014, Carnival Legend-South Pacific-8/30/2014, MSC Preziosa-Mediterranean-10/25/2014, MSC Fantasia-Mediterranean-11/2/2014, Navigator of the Seas-12/14/2013, Norwegian Jewel-1/3/2015, Emerald Princess-1/11/2015, Carnival Freedom-2/2/2015, Carnival Freedom-2/15/2015.
  #288 (permalink)  
Old June 10th, 2008, 07:59 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Greeneville, Tennessee
Posts: 4,524
Default

It indeed has been an interesting thread.

I would, since obviously and hopefully, this issue is ending, to make just a couple of personal observations and/or corrections.

1. A lot of "statements" have been quoted and thereafter referred to as "facts".............yet almost none of which would ever be considered by a court of law as anything other than heresay.

2. Someone more or less maligned Anita Potter as being obviously anti-cruise. They obviously are neither familiar with Anita's journalistic offerings nor her integrity. She has written one of the most supportive articles of cruising and the industry (in general) than any other I've ever read.

Todd
  #289 (permalink)  
Old June 11th, 2008, 06:21 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,900
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Thank you FL-Cruiser for your consideration. You are very welcome to stick around and help people out.

I just want to say that we here at CM do not enjoy reading negativity in our forums, whether it is about a journalist or another poster. We understand people disagree sometimes, even often, but we believe it is possible to disagree without going into characterization assasinations of the people one disagrees with. Maligning anyone's character is presumptuious at best. This is a message board, you are only seeing a tiny iota of the entire person who may be leaving a post.

I see this all the time, and it frankly really rankles me (probably because it has happened to me). Someone comes in and says something somewhat negative and people jump all over them by saying they must be liars, idiots, scammers, trolls, - whatever. generally, that isn't true at all in most cases. They are just people with limited knowledge who had a bad experience and want to ask people more in the knowwhat they think about it.

The way some people react, you would think that is a crime. It isn't.

I happen to be an accomplished musician and former pro recording engineer. A few years ago I picked up recording again, but the technology had totally changed. I went into a message board for the product I was using, and said "this thing doesn't make sense to me, it doesn't do this, or that..."

The fact is I know tons more than most people about the subject of recording, but there were just a very few basic things I didn't know about digital multi-track recording. I had literally 3 days experience with when I posted.

A know-it-all regular posted back at me that his 10-year old child was smarter than me and I was obviously lying about having worked in Grammy winning studios. He maligned me left & right, and because he was popular in that board, a lot of other people also took joy in doing the same thing. After that, I endured months of abuse in that message board that I just really didn't need or deserve.

My point is that I know how it feels to be attacked in a message board by people who have pre-determined for themselves that they are going to do that. It is very hard to "win" in a message board - change people's minds. Especially with some people who just have to be right every time (those are the people who make me crazy).

FL-cruiser, I have disagreed with you, but I respect the fact that you are not a zealot and you are intelligent enough to know when enough is enough. So, you are very welcome to stick around and be one of us.
  #290 (permalink)  
Old June 11th, 2008, 07:35 PM
glgolfer's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 142
Default

Sorry, but I just have to post one more time here.
The main reason I have a problem with what was reported is that it would take just a moment to compare the original review with what was stated as truth in the MSNBC story. The original review complained about a "sewage smell". Nowhere was there any mention of sewage spewing out of the toilet into the cabin and onto the carpet. You would think that if it was that bad, it would be a major part of the initial review.
I posted that on more than one board including Anita's.

As far as I can tell, no attempt was made to compare the two stories by the journalist. I did not understand then and still don't why that was never done. Or, if it was why nothing was said about it.
Any chance you can enlighten me?
  #291 (permalink)  
Old June 12th, 2008, 12:38 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,900
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

Are we really going to start this up again?

The obvious answer is that Anita did not know about the original review.

Reporters are not psychics. A writer comes into a story with a clean slate and they go by what they find as they go along. She had Moran's story and she then contacted Royal Caribbean to get their side. Once Royal Caribbean told Anita they had compensated Moran based on her complaint, Anita had no reason to suspect BM of "lying". RCI essentially verified Moran as a credible source at that point. If the original review had any bearing to RCI, they would have told Anita about it.

Had Anita known about the original review through any means I believe she would have addressed it. But the article came out based upon what Anita had verified as the details of the event when she wrote it.

To write an article you have to frame the scope of the article. No one can be responsible for knowing every facet of any subject. If additional facts come up later you then have to decide whether they have any bearing on what you wrote - would they have changed the outcome?

In this case, RCI didn't seem to know or care about the original article. RCI agreed to honor Moran's claim. They banned her for a different reason (not agreeing to take down the post about compensation). The original review had no bearing on any of these events.

You are implying it is a journalist's job to create news. That Anita should have investigated Brenda Moran just because RCI banned her. But RCI did not tell Anita anything about the original review, or that they thought she has a scammer. All that came out in message boards by non-involved people outside the scope of Anita's article after the fact.

I am not saying it isn't important information. I am just saying it had no bearing on what Anita wrote. There is a difference.

It could be an interesting additional article, I guess, if someone wants to continue following Moran and see what she does. The next time you see Moran making an online complaint make her contradictions public before the cruise line makes a final decision on her.
  #292 (permalink)  
Old June 12th, 2008, 01:10 PM
glgolfer's Avatar
Senior Member
Cruise Maniac
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 142
Default

I wasn't clear enough about why I posted. I have no problem with Anita's original article based on the information she had. I'm just curious why there was no followup as I thought was promised when the difference between the original review and the later statement was pointed out. The URL to the original review was also supplied.
It just seems that was ignored. If there was that much difference between 2 statements aout the same incident, it might have led me to do a little more research.
OK, I'm done. Nevermore to post about this subject. Castigate me if you wish.
  #293 (permalink)  
Old June 12th, 2008, 01:59 PM
Junior Member
Beginner
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 6
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Motter
Are we really going to start this up again?

The obvious answer is that Anita did not know about the original review.

Reporters are not psychics. A writer comes into a story with a clean slate and they go by what they find as they go along. She had Moran's story and she then contacted Royal Caribbean to get their side. Once Royal Caribbean told Anita they had compensated Moran based on her complaint, Anita had no reason to suspect BM of "lying". RCI essentially verified Moran as a credible source at that point. If the original review had any bearing to RCI, they would have told Anita about it.

Had Anita known about the original review through any means I believe she would have addressed it. But the article came out based upon what Anita had verified as the details of the event when she wrote it.

To write an article you have to frame the scope of the article. No one can be responsible for knowing every facet of any subject. If additional facts come up later you then have to decide whether they have any bearing on what you wrote - would they have changed the outcome?

In this case, RCI didn't seem to know or care about the original article. RCI agreed to honor Moran's claim. They banned her for a different reason (not agreeing to take down the post about compensation). The original review had no bearing on any of these events.

You are implying it is a journalist's job to create news. That Anita should have investigated Brenda Moran just because RCI banned her. But RCI did not tell Anita anything about the original review, or that they thought she has a scammer. All that came out in message boards by non-involved people outside the scope of Anita's article after the fact.

I am not saying it isn't important information. I am just saying it had no bearing on what Anita wrote. There is a difference.

It could be an interesting additional article, I guess, if someone wants to continue following Moran and see what she does. The next time you see Moran making an online complaint make her contradictions public before the cruise line makes a final decision on her.
Paul,
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse, I must disagree with some (not all) of what you said. Anita had access to the review. In fact, she had a link to it in her article.

She included a reference to a review she obviously did not read and that is not good journalism. The contradiction was supplied in her own article. In addition, several people pointed it out on Anita's blog. She chose to ignore that and criticize the people who pointed it out.

From Anita's article:
"When Brenda returned home she wrote her usual post-cruise review on Cruise Critic and posted notes on their forums that started vigorous feedback from fellow cruisers."

From Brenda's review:
"Our stateroom 8276 (AFT D1) was nicely appointed but the bathroom reeked of sewer smell for the entire 14 night cruise. Guest Relations did nothing but tell us about other guests who flush oranges, apples, silverware, diapers, etc down the toilet so we should talk to them. So our balcony door remained open the entire cruise even in 40 degree nights to keep the air fresh. Night 14 at midnight we have a guy banging on our door to deliver an envelope from the Hotel Manager giving us 20% off our next cruise. Too bad it took 2 weeks to do it"

I agree that was an unacceptable situation and compensation was called for. It was offered and accepted and that should have been the end of story. That Brenda chose (and I don't think anyone believes she was forced to go public) to make a further issue of it and grossly exaggerate things is what has me and most people upset. She was banned and decided to make a stink about it (pun intended).

Brenda says she was banned for the review. RCL says it was because of a pattern of complaints they felt were excessive and not conducive to good business. Your complete acceptance that Brenda's account is true is, to me, an indication of just how one-sided Anita's story was. How difficult would it be to read a few other reviews on Cruise Critic and see that there are other reviews there that appear more negative than Brenda's? OK, that's rhetorical, because I did it and know it took me less than 10 minutes to find several examples. Certainly at least a small indication that RCL might not demand removal of critical reviews.

In my opinion, a reasonable journalist would admit that there was information available that might have changed the tone of the story just a bit. Even if she had read the review, the basic fact of the banning would stand, but it would have lead her to ask a few more questions about the claims being made. I absolutely do not believe that journalist should make the news. We have too much of that in the media as it is.

Your blanket acceptance of the reason RCL banned them is bothersome as it is based on a story that has some verifiable weaknesses. When a significant part of a story is demonstrably incorrect (or at the very least wildly exaggerated), the entire premise is suspect.
  #294 (permalink)  
Old June 12th, 2008, 04:19 PM
Junior Member
Beginner
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3
Default

PS, I'm not the same Anita as the "reporter" We just share the same name. in fact, I'm a retired accountant who used to work for OSG.

Anita
  #295 (permalink)  
Old June 12th, 2008, 04:51 PM
Paul Motter's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: in my office!
Posts: 10,900
Send a message via AIM to Paul Motter
Default

I have tried to answer this, but I don't have all day to waste explaining my thoughts on an article I didn't even write. And now you are saying you can read my mind - something I personally do not like. So I now understand why Anita said "just get over it."

I did go back and re-read the article. I really did not want to get this involved , but I am now here - but no more.

Anita DID acknowlege the first review Moran wrote - therefore I was wrong to say she didn't know about it. She did, and she even noted it in her article, So she has even more credibility than I gave her credit for.

Why didn't she note the discrepancy between the review and what Moran said later about scat on the floor? All I can tell you is she said that Branda sounded very credible in person. You can choose not to believe if you wish (and I feel you will, but have you ever spoken to her?)

Second: I said RCI didn't dispute what Moran said. I was wrong again!

In fact they said there were times when they didn't agree with them. Good for RCI, they did stick up for themselves. So, I was wrong again.

Quote:
Your complete acceptance that Brenda's account as true is, to me, an indication of just how one-sided Anita's story was.
What? Never did I say I had a blanket acceptance for ANYthing Moran said. In fact, I don't. I can say I have had toilets and showers overflow into my own stateroom, on RCI and other ships. But I don't understand how you could say anything I might think personally (which I didn't) would reflect on the accuracy of another writer's article. How do you even make that connection?

Quote:
How difficult would it be to read a few other reviews on Cruise Critic and see that there are other reviews there that appear more negative than Brenda's? OK, that's rhetorical, because I did it and know it took me less than 10 minutes to find several examples. Certainly at least a small indication that RCL might not demand removal of critical reviews.
But the point isn't all reviews, it is any. Should a cruise line demand to have any removed? You may recall there was a pretty big stink a few months ago when hotels were caught posting their own reviews on Trip Advisor?

I have to say, you folks are doing an awful lot of complaining and questioning of Anita's and my motives over what I consider a pretty pointless argument, "did Brenda Moran lie about whether there was scat on the floor?"

I don't see why someone who is "just a satisfied customer" would still be so upset about that one point. The woman was found to be a liar and she was banned. What do you want? A special edition from the New York Times?

signed... I don't get it.

But like I said, I didn't write the article and I don't want to get further involved. I thought we were done with this. I know I am.
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
112810, baned, banned, caribbean, complaints, couple, cruise, cruises, cruising, life, passengers, rccl, rcl, rip, royal, solstice

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Banned for life by Carnival Trip Chit - Chat for Cruisers 26 September 7th, 2009 08:36 PM
Banned for life by Carnival Trip Carnival Cruise Lines 36 September 3rd, 2009 08:49 PM
Royal Caribbean + Carnival 14 days Caribbean $798. Share? onfirst1 Seeking Cruise Companion 0 January 5th, 2007 10:08 PM
A couple of Caribbean Princess questions mseldga Princess Cruise Lines 9 July 11th, 2006 11:14 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:15 PM.
design by: Themes by Design

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1