Funniest Complaints Heard While Cruising

[packercruising]

Did you take the time to explain to her that you were the better people, maybe even the best and she should see the Others. Lol

 

I might have said something like, The better people have been here for awhile.:cool:

[navybankerteacher]

Funniest post on this thread :D

 

Tempts me to lecture all Americans on the merits of properly-cooked back bacon, rather than that frazzled burnt streaky stuff served in the States.

But I won't - last time I did that on Cruise Critic I got into an argument :D

 

JB :)

 

Every now and then one might run into an incompetent American chef who can't cook real hickory smoked side bacon - but then, as a Britisher, you surely must have experienced a touch of ineptitude occasionally served up with your breakfast 🍳.

[gooch47]

Did you take the time to explain to her that you were the better people, maybe even the best and she should see the Others. Lol

Wish I had a comeback but we all ignored her all during the meal. Her husband seemed embarassed.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-T217A using Forums mobile app

[MicCanberra]

No cruise related but still fits within the spirit of the thread.

 

About 10 years ago just before the kids, we took one last couples trip to WDW.

it was in early December right after thanksgiving.

Anyway, we were on the monorail from our hotel to EPCOT and an older couple sitting in the same monorail car with us.

 

The husband loudly starts telling his wife how mad he is that "THERE ARE TOO MANY G-D DAM KIDS HERE" He looks at us as if we were going to agree with him.

 

So, I said" what did you expect its Disney, not Vegas!!!" he says, maybe true, but we spent a lot of money to come here... his wife turns around and tells him to "SHUT THE HELL UP, FOR FORTY YEARS NOTHING IS EVERY GOOD ENOUGH, its no wonder why the dog ran away!!!"

 

Love it.:D

[MicCanberra]

Some of these stories are amusing. But the one we have heard on quite a few different cruises (we have spent more then 3 years on cruise ships) are cruisers who get very angry that "the ship is moving." I know it sounds funny and weird, but we have heard it again and again. Inexperienced cruisers somehow think that the cruise line and Captain owe them some kind of compensation because of rough seas or long swells. DW and I simply want to laugh at these folks...but they are truly serious. And we see it here on CC nearly every day on many different threads. Posters are always asking if their future cruise will have calm seas ("because we cannot tolerate a moving ship") etc. In a similar vein we have heard cruisers demanding some kind of compensation because it rained! Go figure,

 

Hank

 

I have heard that also, some friends said that they do not like the movement but there is usually more movement in a car or on the train than on a ship.

[Enforcer]

Funniest post on this thread :D

 

Tempts me to lecture all Americans on the merits of properly-cooked back bacon, rather than that frazzled burnt streaky stuff served in the States.

But I won't - last time I did that on Cruise Critic I got into an argument :D

 

JB :)

 

Hi JB,

 

I feel your pain bro.

Some people don't do bacon for religious reasons, I don't do religion for bacon reasons. :):):)

 

Pete

[MicCanberra]

Hi JB,

 

I feel your pain bro.

Some people don't do bacon for religious reasons, I don't do religion for bacon reasons. :):):)

 

Pete

 

LOL, great saying.:D

[SteveH2508]

Hi JB,

 

I feel your pain bro.

Some people don't do bacon for religious reasons, I don't do religion for bacon reasons. :):):)

 

Pete

 

I am going to nick that quote if you don't mind - I love it!

[John Bull]

Hi JB,

 

I feel your pain bro.

Some people don't do bacon for religious reasons, I don't do religion for bacon reasons. :)

 

Pete

 

:D :D

 

BTW,

NBT- I wasn't complaining that some US chefs don't get it right. Its a complaint that folk in the US actually like cheap & fatty streaky bacon (like belly pork), and they like it incinerated to the texture of potato chips.

"English" bacon is meaty back bacon, more like thinly sliced port chop - and cooked rather than cremated. Some ships' buffets have both & boy can't you just see the difference

 

Can't beat a bacon buttie, with fried onions & brown sauce.

 

 

 

Gotta go now - I suddenly feel hungry ;)

 

JB :)

[navybankerteacher]

:D :D

 

BTW,

NBT- I wasn't complaining that some US chefs don't get it right. Its a complaint that folk in the US actually like cheap & fatty streaky bacon (like belly pork), and they like it incinerated to the texture of potato chips.

"English" bacon is meaty back bacon, more like thinly sliced port chop - and cooked rather than cremated. Some ships' buffets have both & boy can't you just see the difference

 

Can't beat a bacon buttie, with fried onions & brown sauce.

 

 

 

Gotta go now - I suddenly feel hungry ;)

 

JB :)

 

When I want a thinly sliced pork chop, I'll have British bacon. Of course, cheap establishments everywhere will serve cheap versions of otherwise good food, poorly cooked. Properly cooked, properly sliced, properly smoked side bacon is what I recommend you try - sadly it is not generally available. I agree that most places which pretend to serve decent breakfasts serve the overdone thin cuts you protest - I protest them as well; I simply would like to make you aware of the right thing done correctly: it must be thickly sliced, it should be applewood or hickory smoked, and it should be cooked to firm consistency without being charred: that properly prepared meat is the baby which should not be thrown out with the bath water which you protest.

[maldenmusic]

Not a complaint but still funny. As we were getting close to the mouth of the Mississippi near dusk you can see the oil derricks in the Gulf. Some people who were on deck close to us kept talking about the lights we were seeing and one good ole boy who was trying to impress his gal pal told her those were the ships in the Mississippi River and we'd be following them to New Orleans. Started to correct him but it was funnier just listening to him. I guess it never occurred to him that those "ships" weren't moving.....at all.

[MicCanberra]

http://www.cruisecritic.com.au/articles.cfm?ID=2597

 

some of you guys are now famous.;)

[Magnum60]

WHAT?!?!?!?! :eek::mad:

 

 

Originally Posted by legaljen1969

"Same thing happened to us at Grand Cayman. We were on an excursion out to Stingray City and a man demanded I get up and give him my seat because he had a sunburn. I had a little bit of a sunburn and said I needed the shade too but he was welcome to sit next to me. He said he wanted my seat and I needed to move. He was pretty rude about it so I did give him my seat but I wondered why he had chosen an excursion where you stand out in the ocean.

 

I am truly baffled by this. How do you just demand someone else's seat?

 

I tend to be a bit outspoken when confronted by an idiot and would have politely told 'Mr. Sunburn' that two things were about to happen. The first thing would be that his demand would not be taking place and secondly that the ride back to the ship always seems to take forever - especially if you're sunburned. It's funny how quickly bullies fold when confronted.

[marco]

Long time ago....at dinner, someone at our table complained that the coffee was too hot!

[Dayenu]

That's why I advocate hickory or applewood smoked side bacon - no salt, no nitrates, not fried - presumably thickly sliced and competently cooked (baked or broiled) by someone who gives a damn - regardless of country of origin.

 

I would refuse to eat kale, or strawberries or quinoa - or anything - if it were mucked up the way some people think bacon has to be, just so they can rant against it.

 

Next time, when you order kale, make K silent ;)

[Magnum60]

Long time ago....at dinner, someone at our table complained that the coffee was too hot!

 

That works! A woman at a McDonald's drive thru put a 'hot coffee' between her legs and drove off. Well, a bit latter traveling down the road the lid of her 'hot coffee' came off supposedly scalding a 'sensitive' part of he anatomy. She sued and won! Maybe when the money runs out she can drive down to the local Dairy Queen and order a milk shake and .................................

[navybankerteacher]

Next time, when you order kale, make K silent ;)

 

That is the soundest advice I have seen on these threads in weeks.

[Kiran]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

 

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter.[12] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[13][14]

 

The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3]

 

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[2] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[17]"

 

I spilled a small amount of McDonalds coffee over my fingers when I took the lid off to dump some coffee and add milk and sugar and was surprised how much my fingers hurt just from a tiny amount of contact time. I had never been burnt by coffee or tea before. It took a week before the fingers didn't hurt from where coffee had spilled on them.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Kiran

[Gwendy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

 

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter.[12] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[13][14]

 

The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3]

 

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[2] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[17]"

 

I spilled a small amount of McDonalds coffee over my fingers when I took the lid off to dump some coffee and add milk and sugar and was surprised how much my fingers hurt just from a tiny amount of contact time. I had never been burnt by coffee or tea before. It took a week before the fingers didn't hurt from where coffee had spilled on them.

Fancy coffee being hot! Sometimes you can legislate for stupidity.

[MicCanberra]

There was a time when 'sense' was common.:(

[Bizmark'sMom]

Overheard on n excursion to Mont St Michele -- in the abbey at the very top of the island;

"How is this place wheelchair friendly? This should never have been allowed!"

 

I suppose we should go back in time and tell the monks they built it incorrectly. After all, the oldest part of the abbey only dates back to the 8th century.

[navybankerteacher]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants

 

"Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent.[11] She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9 kg, nearly 20% of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for 3 weeks, provided by her daughter.[12] Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years.[13][14]

 

The trial took place from August 8–17, 1994, before New Mexico District Court Judge Robert H. Scott.[16] During the case, Liebeck's attorneys discovered that McDonald's required franchisees to hold coffee at 180–190 °F (82–88 °C). At 190 °F (88 °C), the coffee would cause a third-degree burn in two to seven seconds. Liebeck's attorney argued that coffee should never be served hotter than 140 °F (60 °C), and that a number of other establishments served coffee at a substantially lower temperature than McDonald's. Liebeck's lawyers presented the jury with evidence that 180 °F (82 °C) coffee like that McDonald's served may produce third-degree burns (where skin grafting is necessary) in about 12 to 15 seconds. Lowering the temperature to 160 °F (71 °C) would increase the time for the coffee to produce such a burn to 20 seconds. Liebeck's attorneys argued that these extra seconds could provide adequate time to remove the coffee from exposed skin, thereby preventing many burns. McDonald's claimed that the reason for serving such hot coffee in its drive-through windows was that those who purchased the coffee typically were commuters who wanted to drive a distance with the coffee; the high initial temperature would keep the coffee hot during the trip.[2] However, the company's own research showed that some customers intend to consume the coffee immediately while driving.[3]

 

Other documents obtained from McDonald's showed that from 1982 to 1992 the company had received more than 700 reports of people burned by McDonald's coffee to varying degrees of severity, and had settled claims arising from scalding injuries for more than $500,000.[2] McDonald's quality control manager, Christopher Appleton, testified that this number of injuries was insufficient to cause the company to evaluate its practices. He argued that all foods hotter than 130 °F (54 °C) constituted a burn hazard, and that restaurants had more pressing dangers to worry about. The plaintiffs argued that Appleton conceded that McDonald's coffee would burn the mouth and throat if consumed when served.[17]"

 

I spilled a small amount of McDonalds coffee over my fingers when I took the lid off to dump some coffee and add milk and sugar and was surprised how much my fingers hurt just from a tiny amount of contact time. I had never been burnt by coffee or tea before. It took a week before the fingers didn't hurt from where coffee had spilled on them.

 

There used to be a generally accepted tenet in liability cases that "contributory negligence is a bar to recovery". Recently, however juries seem to have come around to the point that if ANY responsibility for injury can be laid on a party with "deep pockets" they should play Santa Claus.

 

Now, it seems that if anyone is injured - no matter how clearly as a result of his own carelessness - SOMEONE owes him. Perhaps the fact that most legislators are attorneys, and so many attorneys want to support bar associations, and so many bar associations are influenced by the liability practice which is so enriched by contingency fees contributes to the success of litigiousness - and leads to the defeat of any proposed legislation which might impose reasonable limitations.

[cml4958]

There used to be a generally accepted tenet in liability cases that "contributory negligence is a bar to recovery". Recently, however juries seem to have come around to the point that if ANY responsibility for injury can be laid on a party with "deep pockets" they should play Santa Claus.

 

Now, it seems that if anyone is injured - no matter how clearly as a result of his own carelessness - SOMEONE owes him. Perhaps the fact that most legislators are attorneys, and so many attorneys want to support bar associations, and so many bar associations are influenced by the liability practice which is so enriched by contingency fees contributes to the success of litigiousness - and leads to the defeat of any proposed legislation which might impose reasonable limitations.

That's because there are so many entitled people today that are special snowflakes and must be protected from themselves.

[Chanman76]

There was a time when 'sense' was common.:(

 

I always say we should remove the safety/warning labels from EVERY item on sale and let the problem eventually sort itself by culling the idiots out of the heard. :rolleyes: #justsaying :D

[Hollzpop]

I always say we should remove the safety/warning labels from EVERY item on sale and let the problem eventually sort itself by culling the idiots out of the heard. :rolleyes: #justsaying :D

 

 

Haha!!! "Survival of the fittest" at its finest! [emoji23][emoji23]

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Forums