From: John Sisker on 27 Jun 2010 23:08
To Whom It May Concern:
I was hoping not to bring this to the inner workings of this
newsgroup, but since Bonham sent me the following private e-mail, but
with a phony return e-mail address, I seem to have no choice. What I,
and others, now need to find is at the very least the real e-mail
address for Ari Silverstein, or better yet, his actual mailing
address. If anyone can supply such information, you can naturally do
so privately at jsisker(a)sprynet.com.
What follows is Ari's private e-mail to me, and below that, my
response back to him. Unfortunately, that response has simply gone to
a bogus e-mail address that he has associated with his dialogue and
apparently with all his posts/threads. Likewise, I am well aware that
there are some out there who feel that I am getting what I deserve
anyway. Yet, this is going far beyond simple opinions and
disagreements, even when communicated with flowerily language and
creative expressions. However, Bonham has chosen to take this to a
very personal vendetta level with the intent to destroy, and now
needs to be deal with, not only privately, but at a level far beyond
this or any other newsgroup.
Thanks for understanding.
Sincerely, John Sisker (714) 536-3850
> You made a nasty post about me after I praised Ray for doing
> business the right way. You said I knew nothing about you.
> Well John, I have watched you post for many months here and your
> only purpose seems to be insulting other travel agents, breaking
> the charter as often as possible with no remorse, and pandering for
> customers while displaying a stunning lack of knowledge of the
> cruise industry. Enough said dude. Your a terrible travel agent and
> any one who books with you deserves what they get. By the way, you
> have been in my kill file for awhile now. I just refreshed the
> newsgroup and caught your ignorant retort. Agreeing with the
> biggest lunatic troll on the group "Chrissy Cruiser" makes you look
> even more foolish than you already did. And that is a feat of near
> impossibility. I have passed the name of your so called agency
> around to the many cruise groups I belong to and have asked them to
> spread the word that you are an unqualified agency that has no
> business in the cruise industry. Hopefully no one I know will get
> stung by you incompetence.
If I made any so called "nasty" comments about you personally,
believe me, it was only in response to those you chose to make about
me and my agency first. The same actually holds true for a few others
as well; for most of my correspondence within this newsgroup is
either press releases or adding what I can to personal inquiries. In
addition, I obviously can't break Charter rules when they seem to be
nothing more than an exercise in double-standards.
In reality, the very first time I even saw your name was when you
immediately chose to align yourself with those who make it a habit of
maligning others, and you quickly followed suit against me
In addition, your personal decision to now pass my name and agency
around to the many cruise groups; that I am an unqualified an
incompetent agent that has no business in the cruise industry, was a
very poor choice indeed, and now one that has crossed the lines of
harassment. Your conscious decision to purposely try to undermine and
jeopardize a 20+ year business, and all without even bothering to
check my online credentials, will now be dealt as such.
Good luck sailing now,
John Sisker, SHIP-TO-SHORE CRUISE AGENCY
(714) 536-3850 or toll free at (800) 724-6644 & (Agency No.
From: George Dance on 27 Jun 2010 23:21
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 23:08:34 -0400, John Sisker wrote:
n article <5r5ecuF130tu...(a)mid.individual.net>, johnSPAMNOT31
> I came across this newsgroup several months ago
welcome to the petting zoo.
> when I really wanted some
> information about a cruise. I
Wrong place to look for that here.
> didn't find what I was looking for but I
> continued to look at postings (and very occasionally contribute) for reasons
> that I suspect are masochistic. It is the funniest ng I have ever seen,
There are many that make this one look tame in comparison.
> I don't think that the denizens of it really look at it in that light.
Many do, but not the core clique of a dozen or so that live and
breathe rtc. You know who they are.
> of the exchanges are of items which refer only to one person and should
> really be the subject of e-mail.
What fun would that be?
> And it is so totally arrogant in that the
> inmates of the group are so US-centric and make forays to the great outside
> world without ever really, in the cultural sense, departing from the U S of
> In lots of ways it is almost incestuous.
That kind of talk around here can get you sued.
> And then we have Travel Agents
> of various persuasions posting news releases of mind-bogglingly unimportant
> trivia at incessantly frequent intervals just so that they can include their
> web addresses in their sig.
Except for Googleberg, who the core clique has decided they're just
> Ninety per cent plus of it is just puerile
> almost beyond description.
Stick around. It will get to be more fun to poke with a stick.
From: Charles on 27 Jun 2010 23:25
> Look, I don't agree with what this guy did (sounds like a lawsuit in the
And do you know if this "private e-mail" is for real? Sisker could
have made it up. I would not take Sisker's word for it.
Or someone else could have made it up and forged Bonham's name on it
and sent it to Sisker. We know there are troublemakers who do that.
And since Sisker can't trace the e-mail because it came with a phony
e-mail address, then isn't going to be able to prove that it came from
Silverstein, even if he actually did send it.
I have had my disagreements with Bonham, but if I knew Bonham's e-mail
address, which I don't, I sure would not snitch it out to Sisker, so
he can harass Silverstein. Sisker destroyed his own reputation with
his own words and actions, he needs no help from Silverstein in that
From: George Leppla on 27 Jun 2010 23:31
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 23:30:42 -0400, John Sisker wrote:
> Sarcasm came through loud and clear George. And in response, yes,
> goons would be cheaper. If I did consider that route, maybe you would
> take the job. Didn't your threaten to drive your pick-up truck
> through someone's house some time ago, when they disagreed with you?
> However, that may not be such a good solution after all. I bet you
> don't even have a pick-up truck that can make it that far.
Uhhhhh........... no. Never happened.
I don't know what the Hell you are talking about, but then, neither do
Put down the Egg Nog and do a Google search and show where I ever said
that. Or apologize for accussing me of something I never did.
Oh... and I haven't owned a pick-up truck for a few years.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
Cuntryside Travel http://www.Cuntryside-Travel.com
From: Ari Silverstein on 27 Jun 2010 23:45
On Sun, 27 Jun 2010 23:08:34 -0400, John Sisker wrote:
> To Whom It May Concern:
Right here, Johnnie. Am I in twubble?lol
Need a Travel Agent that can't spell, put together a simple,
grammatically correct English sentence, self promotes himself
shamelessly across Usenet and lives in a trailer? John Sisker