From: Tom K on 15 Jun 2010 17:22
On 6/15/10 5:03 PM, John Sisker wrote:
> "Mark (SF)" <mark(a)markkatzenberger.com> wrote in message
>> John, a criticism isn't the same thing as an attack.
>> Listen. Learn. Stop getting defensive and whiny.
>> Look at any number of well-organized cruise reviews here or on cruise
>> sites. Pay attention (I know it's hard) and see what "works."
>> There are many ways to organize a review. The most popular is a
>> journal. You can also divide it up into sections as a review of
>> components of the hardware and service, or you can focus on one aspect
>> of the cruise. They can be mixed, as long as the reader is cued into
>> what to expect (...and you're clear as to what observations were
>> yours, whether they're were from this cruise or others, and what parts
>> are from other sources, and how they relate) However, yours veered
>> from personal observations to cut-and-pasted statistics and then to a
>> narrative on the old fire. My previous comment regarding copying a
>> school report from an encyclopedia was quite apt. Your "review"
>> resembled nothing as much as a cobbled-together mess that a clueless
>> junior college freshman might throw together because he's never
>> thought about organizing his thoughts and material into a coherent
>> When you cut-and-paste together an Frankenstein's monster, people are
>> apt to be horrified.
> Well, I'll take that as a way to help and inform, but I still feel it
> was originally an attack; yet, not by you, but another. But this type of
> sarcasm, from those self appointed internet police and arm-chair
> attorneys, is certainly nothing new. This has all been speculated on
> before, and as before, I simply end up ignoring such remarks as no basis
> of true facts. However, this type of dialogue does tend to bring others
> out of the woodwork as well, some using it to promote their business,
> while others see the opportunity to express personal opinions.
> Either way, this has given me an idea, which I did hint at the other
> day. So, in this particular case, instead of continuing on with the
> typical and all too familiar personal reviews of a particular ship,
> which as seen here is highly subjective anyway, I will be using the
> photos that we took to communicate our thoughts on this ship instead.
> So, stay tuned. That will be coming soon... called... Review: "Star
> Princess in Photos."
> John Sisker - SHIP-TO-SHORE CRUISE AGENCY�
> (714) 536-3850 or toll-free at (800) 724-6644 & (Agency ID: 714.536.3850)
> www.shiptoshorecruise.com / www.tinplatedesign.com >
John, most of us have been on one or more of those ships... BORING!
Unless you're going on something new like Oasis, who cares? I have my
own pictures of Grand and Crown that I don't bother looking at any more.
Why would I want to look at yours?
About the only thing I might have been interested in was info on the
ports. But to be honest, it was so nice while you were gone, no spam
from either you or Ray... and then the day you get back... did you have
anything to say about the cruise, or the ship, or the food, or the
ports, or the service? Of course not... it was MUCH more important to
spam us again. So by the time you got to posting anything about the
cruise, I felt spammed to the point where I had zero interest in seeing
anything else from you. Sad too... it might have been interesting
reading a real review about the ports you went to.
From: John Sisker on 15 Jun 2010 17:53
"Tom K" <tkanitra(a)optonline.net> wrote in message
> John, most of us have been on one or more of those ships... BORING!
> Unless you're going on something new like Oasis, who cares? I have my own
> pictures of Grand and Crown that I don't bother looking at any more. Why
> would I want to look at yours?
> About the only thing I might have been interested in was info on the
> ports. But to be honest, it was so nice while you were gone, no spam from
> either you or Ray... and then the day you get back... did you have
> anything to say about the cruise, or the ship, or the food, or the ports,
> or the service? Of course not... it was MUCH more important to spam us
> again. So by the time you got to posting anything about the cruise, I
> felt spammed to the point where I had zero interest in seeing anything
> else from you. Sad too... it might have been interesting reading a real
> review about the ports you went to.
Over time, I may write something about the ports, since the ship in question
seems to be so boring to some of you. However, such reports tend to get the
same sarcasm and negative reaction from some, saying that if they wanted to
know about a certain place, they could simply look it up themselves on the
internet. This is one reason why I have divided our trip into select photo
albums instead, and have been including a links to them on this newsgroup
for those that are interested. Yet, like a ship review, or even pictures of
the ports, if you have no interest - then don't look. It's really that
Likewise, in spite of your belief that an acceptable signature line is just
spamming, this has all be addressed before, and apparently hasn't deterred
either Ray or George. In fact, originally it was Ray who I used to model my
signature line after, not realizing at the time, that double-standards are
in play here. That is when it became obvious that this is really just an
unmonitored newsgroup anyway, and no matter what and how something is said,
someone will take exception to it.
But look at the bright side, at least half the so-called problem is gone.
Ray seems to have moved elsewhere - and even after all his talk of trying to
John Sisker & Deborah Lawson-Sisker - SHIP-TO-SHORE CRUISE AGENCY�
(714) 536-3850 or toll-free at (800) 724-6644 & (Agency ID: 714.536.3850)
www.shiptoshorecruise.com / www.tinplatedesign.com >