Toofarfromthesea

18 minutes ago, ontheweb said:

So, they thought they were doing the right thing, but actually made it worse.

Sadly, too often the real expertise of 'experts' seems to be unintended consequences.

OTOH, the top priority of a quarantine is to prevent the contagion from escaping the quarantine area.  Preventing spread of the contagion within the quarantine are is important, but decidedly a secondary priority.

1 hour ago, mayleeman said:

@Hlitner Than you for discussing the details involved. That is my problem with the "don't need it, just assess the risks" advice--people reading that don't get the nitty gritty details of what might be entailed in a problem situation. I know you have sailed all over, and I would guess your post is the fruit of conversations with many people.

People are generally terrible at assessing risk in everyday life.  Doubly so when they don't even know what is entailed if the risk goes bad.

The folks who chose the cruise ship might want to peruse this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/wholly-inappropriate-quarantine-practices-may-have-helped-spread-coronavirus-on-the-diamond-princess-cruise-ship-experts-say/ar-BB102mkO

19 hours ago, Elaine5715 said:

Liar loans....   lenders were required to accept undocumented documents for people who claimed they owned their own business to boost unserved demographics..  People bought houses in hopes of turning and burning.  They found smart buyers would not pay inflated prices on crappily rehabbed houses as suggested on tv shows and were stuck with houses they could not afford.

Yup.  The problem with the 'greater fool' theory is that you can't always find one.

20 hours ago, celoplyr said:

I didn't read the whole thread but... if you don't have passports, you can get home from Mexico JUST FINE.  You don't need a passport to go through a land border.  You can get from Cozumel to Texas in like 30 hours of driving time, they have buses I'm sure.  

 

Although I think this mother only cared about doing things the way she wanted, not finding solutions so that this didn't get this bad!

I'm not sure 30 hours on a Mexican bus with a sick/injured kid is a great solution.

There are a lot of things I like on cruises, and some I don't.  But what I don't understand is why, if there is something I DON'T like, but on the clear evidence a lot of people DO like, that thing should be eliminated.

Don't like the buffet?  Simple solution: don't eat there.

20 hours ago, klfhngr said:

IMHO,  I should've stated. But I do read the reviews, and many are expressing how bad the buffet food has gotten. So I'm right 😉

Lots of people like it well enough to eat there, so no, you are not right.  You just want something different.  Which is fine, but you haven't convinced anyone.

7 hours ago, KennyFla said:

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but if you have information on how the DSC is applied please share.  Some on here say it is definitely shared among the employees on board, some say it is definitely not.  I really want to know so I can decide what I will do.  I am not trying to persuade people to do one way or the other.  As they say in the commercial, "It's your money, do what you want."

The people who claim it goes to the cruiseline are generally looking for a pretext to stiff the crew.

4 hours ago, ducklite said:

The problem is that people think they are entitled to vacations--particularly the people who really shouldn't be taking them based on their finances.

Maybe Mom needs a Dave Ramsay course.  😜

7 hours ago, sparks1093 said:

It's not just a question of affordability. It would have cost $850 to obtain passports for our first cruise which was only 4 days (family of 7). I did my research and examined our risk and determined that given the uncertainty of our future travel plans that we could forego the passports. There are many who would look at the same situation and make the opposite determination and that's fine. I personally did not see the value in them at that time.

That is fine.  But if someone does that and it blows up in their face I'm not going to feel very much sympathy.

20 hours ago, mayleeman said:

And I just hope people on here who constantly tell newbie US cruisers "You don't need passports! Whst're the odds?" will think twice about the consequences of their advice for someone who, despite the odds against it, desperately needs one.

Or, as I like to say, it isn't a problem until it IS a problem.  And then it is a BIG problem.

15 hours ago, oldfashioncruiser said:

I use to use zip lock bags but the past four years have vac sealed the bigger bottles.  Guess I will go back to double zip locking them

Maybe you should consider the special zip-lock type bags that can be vacuum sealed.  Best of both worlds, vacuum sealing with non-destructive access for TSA, if necessary.

https://www.foodsaver.com/food-storage-bags-and-containers/specialty-vacuum-seal-bags-and-rolls/vacuum-zipper-bags/foodsaver-vacuum-zipper-quart-bags-26-count/FSFRBZ0236-NP.html#start=17

9 hours ago, camofwilliamsburg said:

Bar staff are not included in the daily service charge. Tipping bar staff is customary and added to bills. If you have a package, tip a dollar and they do remember you. If you are trying to figure out what to give people then just leave the automatic ones in place , then you do not need to worry. Its done for you.

Bar staff share in the gratuity automatically added to individual drink prices already, and generally the bar gratuities are included in drink packages.  So either way you have already tipped, albeit through a different means than the DSC.  If you want to tip beyond that you certainly can, but you should understand that you have already tipped, and that extra cash tipping constitutes double tipping.  If that is your intention, that's fine.

2 hours ago, 2wheelin said:

Sorry, it is not reforming someone to tell them what you will not put up with. They can still act as they want, but you will not be there.

It is amazing how much difference it makes when one uses “I” statements, as in “I get uncomfortable when you do this”. Rather than “You make me uncomfortable when you do that”.  It does work but most people put up their defenses before speaking and wonder why people continue doing what they do.

And you have already lost half the argument when you call them an idiot.

How can I half lose an argument I never entered?  I'm describing him as an idiot in this thread, not calling him that to his face - the way you know that is I'm not even talking to him because I'm not traveling with him.  But if you want to spend your vacation with someone who does not understand the norms of civilized behavior, so you can try to teach him how not to behave, by all means have at it.  For me, life is too short to let such negative people stay in my life.

3 hours ago, KennyFla said:

Okay, look.   I have cruised before, and have done the added to the bill thing, because I believed that this money was distributed to waiters, cabin stewards, etc.  Several people have mentioned that this is not the case on MSC, the money goes back to corporate.  I personally have a problem with this.  I would rather take that money and give it to the people serving me on the ship.

 

I have not done it before, so I just want to know how much to give each person.

 

The only 15% charge I have heard of is on bar drinks.  And, I don't know for sure, I don't know if I believe that MSC employees are higher paid than other cruise lines.  Just my opinion.

 

Don't believe everything you read on the internet.  There is virtually 0 chance that what you've read is correct.

29 minutes ago, 2wheelin said:

And some of us try to solve problems and get along with people. Not just toss them aside. Speak to them before the cruise then.

I live my life and I encourage other people to live their life.  I don't want anyone, other than my wife. reforming me, and I would regard any such effort as offensive.  So, turn it around, and the Confucian version of the Golden Rule applies:  Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself.

2 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

It doesn't matter how "In God We Trust" was added, it's on the money found in the public schools.  If we want to keep religion out of our schools then we need to frisk every student to make sure they don't carry religion "In God We Trust" into the schools.

If they can afford cell phones they can afford the class.

This is what happens when 'true believers' buy into something.  And I'm not talking about true religious believers.  You are a true Ramsay believer and it causes you to go far overboard in pushing him.  Students are allowed to bring religious materials into school and express themselves about religion.  It is the SCHOOL that cannot do it.  but you distort the reality because that is required to push your point.

3 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

As I said, if you don't put your own money up, this program won't help.  If you put up your own money, then you've shown that you're committed to making a change.  I doubt those kids would place any more value on this class than they do on their free education.

You really do have heartburn with Ramsey.  I doubt there is more than one or two scripture versus per evening and those are carefully chosen to illustrate the point in a lecture.  This isn't proselytism.  Ramsey does insist that one include charity in your budget but he finds any charitable organization to be suitable. 

I'm an evangelical, so I wouldn't have a problem with the verses (so long as they aren't used out of context, which is an all too common trick).  My problem is with the very notion of one-size-fits-all advice.  This thread amply demonstrates the nonsense inherent in that.  One size NEVER fits all.  If such a thing had been put in when my kids were in school I'd have opted out.

19 hours ago, RocketMan275 said:

The basic Ramsey Financial Peace class is constructed to be taught by people who don't have an economics degree.

A class usually begins with a video of maybe 30 Minutes followed by an equal period of class discussion.  Each student gets a book with additional material, all simply stated.  There may or may not be homework, ie, do a budget for one month.  If nothing else, these 'teachers' could teach Financial Peace.  They would learn.  The students would learn and the cost is minimal, $139 per student.  And, no, the school wouldn't pay that amount.  Ramsey is adamant that the student pay this amount to make sure the student has skin in the game.  IOW, it would be essentially free to the school.  BTW, in our area, there are usually several churches hosting the program.  Church membership is not a prerequisite.

90% of the students at the school I taught at were on free lunch and breakfast.  And are so attuned to things being 'free' that most are shocked to learn that the teachers didn't get free lunch.  So not only would the $139 be an instant non-starter, it would be grotesque to use poor kids to pad his bank account so devotees could talk about him being a multimillionaire to buttress his credibility.

20 hours ago, ducklite said:

I agree.  We have enough in liquid savings for both of us to be unemployed for over a year without any income and still pay the bills and even have enough for take out pizza or Chinese or go out and have a cocktail now and then.  It allows me to sleep at night.  It didn't happen overnight, but we also didn't cruise every year while we were growing it.

Delayed gratification is at the very heart of financial success and you are a good example.

21 hours ago, Warm Breezes said:

That definitely would not have worked for us.  We have lived in the same place for 30 years.  My husband worked at the same place for 33 years.  25 miles south of us.  I worked multiple jobs in the last 30 years.  None of them closer 30 miles and none of them in the same direction as DH.  On top of that we had one kid in dance 30 miles in another direction and another in soccer and basketball taking him all over the area.  There would have been no way for us to share one vehicle.  We do, however, drive our vehicles until they are almost dead.  We currently have 2003 Mustang/2003 Explorer that DD drives summer/winter, a 2004 Expedition that DH drives and I drive a 2011 Taurus.  When one car eventually dies we can pay cash for the next one.

And THAT is the problem with one-size-fits-all advice.  One size never fits all.

1 hour ago, 2wheelin said:

You can deal with people like that constructively, without cutting them out of your life forever, or even for the length of a cruise. It can be effective to positively but quietly state that you love them but are not comfortable being in their presence when they speak about XYZ——unless they are willing to listen to other opinions. Tell them the confines of a cruise in particular exacerbate the problem and you will walk away if they continue after being asked to stop. Then do it! You might be surprised how effective that can be—-even if you might have to leave the dinner table. It is amazing how much even the thickest of heads notice and change.

Now some of you will ask “why should I have to leave the table”? While that doesn’t exactly seem “fair”, you can’t really expel them and it does work. Miss one dinner or spend the entire cruise, and after, feeling resentful.

Most of us go on vacation to relax and have a good time, not to try to reform an idiot.

"Miss one dinner or spend the entire cruise, and after, feeling resentful."

Or do neither by not traveling with them.

2 hours ago, Cruisingformetime said:

 

When it's your twin brother... 🙂

That just means you have no excuse, because you knew who you were going with and what he is like.

But this demonstrates another of my life observations: most misery is self-imposed.

AFB in a no-brainer decision.  More space, more to do, better food, easier access to internet, better options in almost every sense.

I think some of you aren't really following the plight of the ones quarantined off Japan on the ship.

3 minutes ago, Harry Peterson said:

Or, alternatively:

 

When there's a danger you don't understand

Just ignore it - put your head in the sand...........

That would be more apt if there was anyone who really understands the danger, yet.  And that is the point.  In the face of uncertainty a measured level of concern based on the best available information is far better than panic induced by scaremongering.