Please reread this – Anita makes it clear that RCL says they did not ban the Morans becauseof the posts on CC…

…

“Royal Caribbean is certainly entitled to ban whomever from their ships. Nevertheless, to ban someone for posting their cruise experience on an Internet message board raises serious questions about the lengths the company is going to keep negative reviews from public consumption. ”

…

Please, when you re-read this it is clear that Anita is not saying she was banned for posting negaitve reviews or for airing “dirty laundry”.

–

I’m sorry, but the juxtaposition of those quoted sentences is a direct insinuation that Royal Caribbean banned the Morans for their Internet postings.

If you don’t see that, look closer.

“raises serious questions about the lengths the company is going”

Which company? In context, the answer is Royal Caribbean.

I don’t think Anita is off the hook for trying to plant the idea that Royal Caribbean banned the Morans from their cruise line for negative Internet postings.

Now if you’re going to take the position that “the company” really refers to a hypothetical company and not the one being discussed throughout the article, then explain this line:

“It appears that one step the company is taking to “get over that” is to intimidate posters of negative reviews…”

Same syntax, “the company” a couple paragraphs down. Again, this doesn’t refer to some unknown, hypothetical cruise line – it refers to Royal Caribbean. How do we know? By reading the rest of the paragraph.

“It appears that one step the company is taking to “get over that” is to intimidate posters of negative reviews and in some cases even going so far as to contact the publishers. Paul Motter, editor of Cruise Mates, was contacted by a Royal Caribbean staffer last November to have a negative review removed or at least amended.”

So don’t hand me the line that Anita didn’t say that Royal Caribbean banned the Morans from their cruise line on the basis of their negative posts. She did.

Care for another example?

George Washington, our first President, was not as perfect as one might imagine. The man was a wife-beating alcoholic with the habit of wearing women’s clothing during Autumn festivals – unseemly behavior, especially for a US President.

Oh, but I didn’t say that Washington wore dresses!

Please.

First of all, the family arrived with no reservation on a peak weekend. There were 10 children. 10. KIDS. ALL BOYS. All between the ages of 10-20. They wanted just one room for the kids. We told them they could only put 4 people in a room for fire safety reasons.

The wife screamed, yelled, threatened to sue for “discrimination” We offered a suite. They didn’t want the suite since it would cost more. Our manager appeared and offered them a 20% discount on two connecting rooms for the kids. They didn’t like the discount. They whined. Then out comes the tax exempt card. They were only NY Tax exempt, not the state they were visiting. Again, we were told we were “Anti-Semantic” and other hatefilled words. They were shouting, rude and completely out of the line. The manager took over their check in and said he could not honor the tax exempt. The wife seemed to shut up when she was dealing with him and not us “lowly” employees.

Then the complaints started. Let’s see if I can remember them all:
1. There was BACON at breakfast. Well, of course there was…they are not the only people in the hotel. But, apparently the mere sight of it caused the wife to become ill.

2. They wanted us to “close” the pool so that the boys could swim. (They do not swim mixed) We refused. Again, we were called evil.

3. The lifeguard was female and was wearing a bathing suit and shorts. Somehow, even though they were not using the pool, this was an affront to them.

4. The refrigerators in the rooms didn’t get cold enough. (This one may have been legit but after all of the other drama-queen complaints we frankly didn’t care)

5. A blind man was in the lobby waiting for a taxi. He had an assist-dog with him. The wife called the police to the hotel to report that we were “violating health code” by allowing service animals in the building.

6. They tried to cook on a hotplate in the room and set off the smoke detector and sprinkler. Somehow, this was our fault.

7. One of the kids bought a soda from a machine. Somehow, the front desk was responsible for it being the “wrong” kind of soda.

8. We did not ever offer shuttle service to area attractions. The wife insisted we did on the phone. She threw one of her fits in the lobby. The manager paid for a cab for them just to get her out of our sight.

9. Housekeeping never did a good enough job.

10. A party nearby checked in late on their Sabbath with a large amount of luggage. The sound of the bellcart and the people walking in the hall (an elderly couple, not a bachelor party) was “disturbing” and “disrepectful.”

Now, although we were so awful the first time around, they came back (after conning corporate out of comping two of the rooms and giving them 50% on the third). The second time, it was just a repeat of the first. After that, the manager said to them, “We cannot accomodate your needs here any longer and feel you will be better served by a different hotel.”

Too bad he didn’t do it after the first fiasco!

http://www.autostalk.com/hyundai/37k-had-get-new-rear-237813-2.html

Best,
Anita

That isn’t the only place though where she has pulled her scams. If you Google her under her known screen names (not sure I can post those here), you will find numerous other online sites where she’s been shot down for trying to pull a fast one on people.

For those who have taken their Cruise Critic bashing over here – why? Why bother? If you have points to make about the Morans, I think that makes sense. I’ve never warmed to Cruise Critic – mostly for the very reasons you all raise, I don’t go there and it’s not really part of my world. What I don’t understand is why so many people who do purport to post there regularly are so negative about it? Why do you keep going back?

If you wish to comment onthe article, please do so. But please remember, it’s the article we need to comment on…