Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community


  • Content Count

  • Joined

About alfaeric

  • Rank
    3,000+ Club

About Me

  • Location
    A2, MI
  • Interests
    Travel, Alfas.
  • Favorite Cruise Line(s)
  • Favorite Cruise Destination Or Port of Call

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The ships are transitioning from the gel to actual hand washing stations. Which is WAY more effective. And when using a public bathroom, use the auto opening door so that you don't touch anything.
  2. The cruise was 9 nights. We thought that since one of the stops was Port Canaveral, it was a fitting thing to do in honor of NASA. Mine was a parachute design that worked well, except that I got some of the lines tangled up when I was going to drop it. Made it down ok, but it was off to the side. Probably would have been among the tie for first had it landed square. But it was a very simple cup design. The next time, it will be a more elaborate design in terms of looks- including little stick legs with pads. But it would operate exactly the same. If I could figure out how to put out fake smoke, it would be cool to have that let out while landing.
  3. Totally agree. I know someone who made a bad choice and killed someone when he was drunk- and he served time. I really don't see justice for the little girl. And it would sicken me if the family profited from the death of their child due to the grandfather who just pleaded guilty of homicide of that child.
  4. FWIW, we saw this event the first time on a normal round trip cruise on the Grandeur from Baltimore last year. Fun to participate in. (and have a design in mind for next time, in honor of NASA)
  5. Wow, that is interesting. I wonder if they took it over, would it mean longer stops for visitors? We will have to keep an eye on El Nuevo Dia....
  6. alfaeric

    La Perla

    There is a pretty cool restaurant in La Perla- La Garita. But I would never want to drive there again, just no space. btw, La Factoria is not in La Perla.
  7. Good for you, but you don't have to be a jerk about my honest question. Given the fear mongering going on, you really expect people to be like you? Especially since they are now asking if you are interacting with anyone from China, Hong Kong, or Macau? Human nature can be pretty nasty. As can people who pretend that they are better than everyone else....
  8. Thinking about it, I should clarify- For someone you DON'T know- would you really walk up to someone who looked Asian, or would you try to avoid them? I applaud you for not over reacting, but I do suspect that your honesty that it could happen to you to avoid people you don't know is the reality in the world right now. People are scared. And it's not as if China is helping.
  9. Honest question- if you saw people that were Asian, would you walk up to them or walk around them right now? I'm betting that most people, including fellow Asians, will be cautious and keep their distance. Fear of getting sick when the largest segment of people who have been exposed are from China is kind of a hard problem to balance between being fair and not getting sick. Same thing would happen if this came out if Ireland- I would keep my distance from any other European.
  10. I think they are now playing the odds more. Since they have added "have you had contact with anyone from the area" question, they fully know that people are going to lie- just like they do for the health quiz. While it's far from universal, the odds of someone with a passport from the area contacting someone there is much higher than the nominal population. Besides, the demands for our public safety forces the CDC and all travel companies to at least LOOK like they are doing something. Not fair, sure. But playing the odds makes it kind of suck.
  11. Why is that obvious? The case against RCI is a claim that he should not have been able to do that, apparently. Not that he didn't do it. At least that's what it appears to claim.
  12. no, you are not explaining yourself clearly. If one must be true, then both can't be false. And now both can be false. Hard to follow a question when the possible outcomes change. I think it's safe to assume they included the video in the public domain was used, but not having court documents, it's an assumption. But just because they used that video does not also mean they did or didn't use the pictures outside. Again, RCI may have took those pictures, but given the criminal case would MASSIVELY impact the civil case, I really don't see them violating any orders surrounding any pubic release. Which means that whatever they used to dismiss the case was not let out. I honestly don't think that the video is the original, anyway- the resolution is pretty bad for what it's supposed to do. Having seen some of the security cameras videos when we have visited the bridge, I really don't think that's it.
  13. So you went from 2 choices to 4. Ok.... At least you see that.... I can repeat your original post again, but that was just two choices.... And you also assume that RCI didn't use proof if he did dangle her out and they have pictures of that. Why? They could have- has anyone published the court transcripts and evidence list? I've not seen that.
  14. You are expecting RCI to release the video to public showing that Anello put her outside, as you seem to want some kind of evidence that shows that. Still frame, video, what does it matter? Besides, YOU, nor any of us, are the one deciding if the case has merit. So how this presents itself to the public is moot. Still- you presented two choices that one has to be true, because you have not seen any pictures or video showing that- from your post: One of these two things must be true... 1) Anello did not actually hold Chloe outside of the window frame. I don't think the security footage that is out in the public shows that (it doesn't show he didn't, but it doesn't show that he did). The most I could say it shows is he might have Chloe standing on the window sill. I see her arm reach out to the sill to steady herself, but that's about it. 2) RCI must not have video from the exterior showing the accident. Surely if they did, they would have included a still with their motion to dismiss showing Chloe being held outside. That image would eliminate the argument that Anello didn't know the window was open. So I disagree with your binary choices that have to be the facts. I don't understand the idea that the public has to see those pictures. It VERY much can be part of their case to dismiss. We do not know that. Unless you are in the courtroom. BTW, the video came from their camera, but that also does not mean RCI released the videos. I would be under the impression that RCI would be legally bound not to, as it is actively being used as evidence in a criminal trial. And releasing that evidence would very much hurt the jury pool. And it's in RCI's best interest to let the criminal case run its course, as it can be very key in the civil case. Especially when the evidence is in their favor.
  15. I disagree. Mostly because people still assume that it was RCI that released the video, and the assumption that since they have not released it, that means they don't have external video. First, I seen no real evidence that RCI was the one who leaked the video in the first place- so to make assumptions based on what hasn't been released by RCI is flawed, IMHO. Second, having some thought for the family, why in the world would RCI release a video showing a child falling to their death? That seems rather sickening of a thing to see, and if I were on corporate affairs, I would do everything in my power to make sure that the video would never, ever be released to the public domain. So because 2 is a flawed "fact", that means 1 is still up in the air. He very much could have held her outside of the window. We just don't know. Seeing someone lean that far out over the rail, where you can't see his head anymore sure makes it look like that. Which means it's still quite possible.
  • Create New...