Do the "Cheerleaders" help or harm NCL?

[GDAC]

Thanks for considering my point....and, BTW, you are correct in that she could have made her point without even calling the statement stupid.

 

There is room for "giving" on both sides.

 

I don't have a side. I sailed twice with them, soon to be my 3rd time and have had a great vacation each time. Was everything perfect? No, but what in life is? I have never bashed NCL, I just think people (or most people) should be able to express their opinions and not be attacked, even if it is their first post. Everyone here at one time or another had to start with post 1. Just because someone's first post is not positive, doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to post.

[CanadianTwosome]

What a great thread. Let's see if I've got the gist of it...

 

It's okay to start and participate in a thread basically 'bashing' a group of people - because one disagrees with them - but it's not okay for those people to post their opinions when they disagree with someone else. Did I get that right?

 

Hmmmm... when I put it that way, it almost seems silly. I guess maybe I don't get it after all.

 

I will say one thing, though... I always find it really funny how the 'cheerleader-haters' accuse the so-called 'cheerleaders' of taking everything negative about NCL personally, when in fact if the 'cheerleader-haters' didn't take comments personally, they wouldn't care.

 

Okay, I guess I have more than one thing to say... I also find it amusing (not really :rolleyes:) that the 'cheerleader-haters' almost always show up on a thread long before anyone ever posts anything that can even be construed as 'cheerleading' - invariably to 'warn' the OP that they should be prepared for the 'attacks' - which is of course supposed to be acceptable because they're 'just telling the truth'.

 

That brings me to something else I've noticed but can't quite seem to understand - how when someone says something negative, in a nasty tone, with rude side-comments, derogatory phrasing, and blatant disrespect, their statements are defended as 'honest', while anyone disagreeing or pointing out the excessive tone of their post is somehow 'attacking' them and must be a 'cheerleader'.

 

Again, I guess I just don't get it. Carry on. :rolleyes:

[SeaShark]

I don't have a side. I sailed twice with them, soon to be my 3rd time and have had a great vacation each time. Was everything perfect? No, but what in life is? I have never bashed NCL, I just think people (or most people) should be able to express their opinions and not be attacked, even if it is their first post. Everyone here at one time or another had to start with post 1. Just because someone's first post is not positive, doesn't mean they don't deserve the right to post.

 

My bad...I meant the "sides" of any given issue.

 

 

I agree with you...I don't have an issue with a negative first post, per se, what get me is when the person is just being overly dramatic about it. I don't think being a "drama queen" benefits anyone. Earlier in this thread, I reference a person who made their 1st post today...and it is negative...but they aren't hysterical, and as such, they're being treated kindly.

[SeaShark]

What a great thread. Let's see if I've got the gist of it...

 

It's okay to start and participate in a thread basically 'bashing' a group of people - because one disagrees with them - but it's not okay for those people to post their opinions when they disagree with someone else. Did I get that right?

 

Hmmmm... when I put it that way, it almost seems silly. I guess maybe I don't get it after all.

 

I will say one thing, though... I always find it really funny how the 'cheerleader-haters' accuse the so-called 'cheerleaders' of taking everything negative about NCL personally, when in fact if the 'cheerleader-haters' didn't take comments personally, they wouldn't care.

 

Okay, I guess I have more than one thing to say... I also find it amusing (not really :rolleyes:) that the 'cheerleader-haters' almost always show up on a thread long before anyone ever posts anything that can even be construed as 'cheerleading' - invariably to 'warn' the OP that they should be prepared for the 'attacks' - which is of course supposed to be acceptable because they're 'just telling the truth'.

 

That brings me to something else I've noticed but can't quite seem to understand - how when someone says something negative, in a nasty tone, with rude side-comments, derogatory phrasing, and blatant disrespect, their statements are defended as 'honest', while anyone disagreeing or pointing out the excessive tone of their post is somehow 'attacking' them and must be a 'cheerleader'.

 

Again, I guess I just don't get it. Carry on. :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Very well put!!! :D Bravo!!

 

You'll notice that you and I share a common icon in our signatures....

 

I remember what that icon represents, as I'm sure you do as well.

 

 

It is too bad that these "cheerleader bashers" don't follow the principles that our common icon represents.

[GDAC]

My bad...I meant the "sides" of any given issue.

 

 

I agree with you...I don't have an issue with a negative first post, per se, what get me is when the person is just being overly dramatic about it. I don't think being a "drama queen" benefits anyone. Earlier in this thread, I reference a person who made their 1st post today...and it is negative...but they aren't hysterical, and as such, they're being treated kindly.

 

 

Yes I agree that poster is being treated fairly, but the other thing is some people aren't as good with the "written word" and don't come across as they mean too (this happens to me a lot). If I posted something and didn't come across clearly and I was jumped on, I wouldn't come back to explain.

[GDAC]

You'll notice that you and I share a common icon in our signatures.....

 

can you enlighten the rest of us who don't know what it means, please?

[SeaShark]

can you enlighten the rest of us who don't know what it means, please?

 

Its easier to show you than to explain....

 

 

Just go back and read over the first couple pages of this thread...it is where the movement started....

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=676001

[CanadianTwosome]

can you enlighten the rest of us who don't know what it means, please?

 

We're 'Sunshine Cruisers'. :)

 

Quite a while ago now - a couple of years I think - someone started a thread just expressing how much they enjoyed cruising, and that while nothing was ever 'perfect', every cruise they went on was 'perfect enough'. That's paraphrasing, but the gist of it was that for many of us, most of the things that others complain about - and get really upset over - just don't impact us at all. That doesn't mean we don't respect others' right to be upset by whatever upsets them - just that we tend to enjoy cruising enough that the small stuff just don't bother us - and in the bigger picture, it's all small stuff.

 

Interestingly enough, it didn't take long for someone to post on the thread that we were all idiots and obviously just didn't understand how bad things actually were - and listed all of the horrible things that NCL does that we should have been complaining about. He was quite relentless, actually, even when he was politely asked to ignore the thread. :)

 

In any case, those of us who were being accused of being 'sunshiny' and wearing 'rose coloured glasses' took both as compliments and started calling ourselves the 'Sunshine Cruisers'.

 

Anyone with a positive outlook is still welcome to join. :)

[CanadianTwosome]

Its easier to show you than to explain....

 

 

Just go back and read over the first couple pages of this thread...it is where the movement started....

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=676001

 

Aren't you clever! Thanks for the link. I think everyone reading this thread should have a look and check out a 'brighter' perspective. :)

[GDAC]

Aren't you clever! Thanks for the link. I think everyone reading this thread should have a look and check out a 'brighter' perspective. :)

 

Canadian Twosome and SeaShark - thanks for the explanation. I am not a member of your group, but I totally agree with what your group stands for. I have found there is nothing like cruising. We love it.

 

Shine on!!!

[DMH15]

But how did they die? Old age? Accident? Waiting for dinner?

 

Surely you don't mean they died from Norovirus?

 

They starved to death! The food is inedible, you know...

 

(Just kidding.)

[logicandsin]

To those of you who have been trying to report dangerous problems on the Jade, I know you have received numerous insults from folks who haven't been on the ships recently and won't respect a less than glowing opinion. Let me say, based on my experiences in the past month on other NCL ships, I believe you fully and will be cancelling my 3 weeks coming up on the Jade. (I loved that ship last time aboard!) If I can get current information, I may book a different voyage, if not, I will be forced to look to a more informative board and cruiseline.

 

I hope you come back to read this. this is from someone who is currently on the jade http://cruiseforums.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=1143751 check it out.

[SeaShark]

Aren't you clever! Thanks for the link. I think everyone reading this thread should have a look and check out a 'brighter' perspective. :)

 

Canadian Twosome and SeaShark - thanks for the explanation. I am not a member of your group, but I totally agree with what your group stands for. I have found there is nothing like cruising. We love it.

 

Shine on!!!

 

 

Further info....

 

 

Once that original thread was closed...another was started...and is still open

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=676326

 

 

The original logo artwork is attached:

[GDAC]

Further info....

 

 

Once that original thread was closed...another was started...and is still open

 

http://boards.cruisecritic.com/showthread.php?t=676326

 

 

The original logo artwork is attached:

 

Thanks for the link. I checked it out quick to look for names and I remember a lot of those people (I have actually been here since 2006, issue with login), makes me wonder what happened to some of them. Hopefully they are crusing into the sunset somewhere.

[mikepmcm]

To turn it around, why do the people who've sworn off NCL forever because of a bad experience feel compelled to come to the NCL board?

Probably a price thing. NCL consistently looks to be a price leader and personally I'd like to see that the low costs aren't affecting the cruising experience. That's why I keep coming back, looking for positive experiences.

[Down-Unders]

No, much worse. See the first three or four postings in this thread for perfect examples, with Down-Unders as the quintessential exemplar. Here's someone who adds nothing but just seeks out threads to bash the inaccurately-termed cheerleaders. What it is that drives someone who has had a perceived (note the significance of that word) bad experience to write hate here for months--or even years--on end is beyond me.

 

"Dangerous" problems on Jade.:rolleyes: Give me a break. We had a great cruise on her little more than a year ago. Talk about overwrought nonsense.

 

 

 

Personal attack, against CC guidelines. Please desist.

[GDAC]

Personal attack, against CC guidelines. Please desist.

 

You aren't going to win this one.

 

I had a post deleted where I was just asking a question

 

They own this board :D

[SeaShark]

No, much worse. See the first three or four postings in this thread for perfect examples, with Down-Unders as the quintessential exemplar. Here's someone who adds nothing but just seeks out threads to bash the inaccurately-termed cheerleaders. What it is that drives someone who has had a perceived (note the significance of that word) bad experience to write hate here for months--or even years--on end is beyond me.

 

"Dangerous" problems on Jade.:rolleyes: Give me a break. We had a great cruise on her little more than a year ago. Talk about overwrought nonsense.

 

Personal attack, against CC guidelines. Please desist.

 

 

 

See...this is exactly the kind of "drama" that people are complaining about.

 

Read Sottovoce's post...there is no personal attack here what-so-ever. His comments are directed at the contents of the posts, NOT toward the character traits of the poster himself.

 

Now, if he pointed out what a douchebag the poster was...for example...that would be a personal attack. IF he did that. :eek:

[swedish weave]

Personal attack, against CC guidelines. Please desist.

 

Since I didn't know what desist meant, I checked the thesaurus and found this definition as information for those of you who are as illiterate as I am. It would seem that DU is telling you not to eat or drink.

 

Verb1.desist - choose not to consume; "I abstain from alcohol"

[GDAC]

See...this is exactly the kind of "drama" that people are complaining about.

 

Read Sottovoce's post...there is no personal attack here what-so-ever. His comments are directed at the contents of the posts, NOT toward the character traits of the poster himself.

 

Now, if he pointed out what a douchebag the poster was...for example...that would be a personal attack. IF he did that. :eek:

 

Check out post #32. Sorry if he is your friend.

 

Plus he never answered my question.

[Down-Unders]

You aren't going to win this one.

 

I had a post deleted where I was just asking a question

 

They own this board :D

 

 

 

:):):):):)

[swedish weave]

I have a question about Down Unders telling us to desist. Since I found the definition as posted above, does DU bear responsibility if I comply with his directive and suffer ill effects from doing it.

[SeaShark]

Since I didn't know what desist meant, I checked the thesaurus and found this definition as information for those of you who are as illiterate as I am. It would seem that DU is telling you not to eat or drink.

 

Verb1.desist - choose not to consume; "I abstain from alcohol"

 

 

LOL....

 

 

I think you're on to something...maybe should be the symbol for the anti-smuggling movement!

 

Check out post #32. Sorry if he is your friend.

 

Plus he never answered my question.

 

I can't speak for someone else, but I have to agree...people who are spreading false or misleading information should be called out. There is no place for that on a site that is supposed to be informing people.

 

There are entire websites (like http://www.snopes.com) that exist entirely for the purpose of "calling people out"...not people specifically, but the false and misleading information that they spread.

 

A lot of the problem comes from people with very thin skins who just can't stand the fact that somebody might disagree with them...they seem to take any type of disagreement as a personal attack or flame.

 

Just because person A has and opinion or experience, and person B has a different opinion or experience, there is no need to attempt to even try to force either one to change their mind.

[GDAC]

I can't speak for someone else, but I have to agree...people who are spreading false or misleading information should be called out. There is no place for that on a site that is supposed to be informing people.

 

So who exactly is spreading false information?

[swedish weave]

See...this is exactly the kind of "drama" that people are complaining about.

 

Read Sottovoce's post...there is no personal attack here what-so-ever. His comments are directed at the contents of the posts, NOT toward the character traits of the poster himself.

 

Now, if he pointed out what a douchebag the poster was...for example...that would be a personal attack. IF he did that. :eek:

 

Good examples !!!!! Do you call that descriptive prose ?;);)