Recent Explorer OTS Cruisers: How's the Ship?

[LoisGriffin1]

Ah well it’s not a great addition. It really adds to the feeling that they want you out of there as soon as possible. 

 

The food was great anyway but it would be nice if they slowed it back down to how it used to be. Plus not have the waitstaff so busy they cannot interact with the guests.

[Thorben-Hendrik]

27 minutes ago, LoisGriffin1 said:

It really adds to the feeling that they want you out of there as soon as possible.  

  

That's a reality! 🙄

[Thorben-Hendrik]

28 minutes ago, LoisGriffin1 said:

Plus not have the waitstaff so busy they cannot interact with the guests.

Like stand around and chit-chat? 🤔

[little britain]

35 minutes ago, LoisGriffin1 said:

Ah well it’s not a great addition. It really adds to the feeling that they want you out of there as soon as possible. 

 

The food was great anyway but it would be nice if they slowed it back down to how it used to be. Plus not have the waitstaff so busy they cannot interact with the guests.

I hate being asked what I want for pudding along with my starter... rather like a Berni Inn of the 70s.

I say I will order after I have finished my main course, if I want anything. 

[brillohead]

11 hours ago, sisocialworker said:

the critique of this ship has been specific...others here want to minimize the person's "opinion" and critique the person who posts it, rather than just "accept that person's point of view" and the facts/pictures they present...

The sad fact is, everyone has a reputation, and almost everyone learns the story of "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" at a very young age.  

If you really are, as you allude, a Senior Instructor Social Worker, you're well familiar with a term called "poor historian".  For those not in the medical field, it's exactly as it sounds -- someone whose story is hard to follow, doesn't match up with facts, changes from one telling to the next, etc. 

We run into poor historians in many demographics -- some are elderly people who forget what medications they take or what year they had a heart attack, some have actual dementia issues and don't even know that they have heart problems or high blood pressure or whatever, some are substance abusers who are either hiding the facts or creating stories to get more drugs or they have fried their brains to the point that they legitimately can't remember, some are psychiatric patients who have mental reasons for saying the things they do, some are just on the low end of the intelligence scale and don't have the mental capacity to comprehend their own medical situation.  

Whenever we have a "poor historian" patient, we take everything with a grain of salt (or, in many cases, several shakers full of salt).  We do our own research, ask family members or caregivers for history, look up medical and pharmacy records, etc., rather than just taking the patient's word for everything.  

In this particular thread's situation, the OP is a very well known poor historian on these boards, with a very specific agenda.  While every individual is entitled to their own opinion, everyone who reads that opinion is also allowed to take the message with a grain of salt -- or, in this case, several shakers full of salt -- and to do their own research to get to the truth of the matter. 

I don't know if the OP has dementia or substance abuse problems or psychiatric problems or intelligence problems, and I really don't care what their reason is for posting the way they do on this forum.  I just know that I pretty much don't believe anything that comes out of that person's posts.  I have that right, just as you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe.  

But the fact of the matter is, reputations matter.  If you have a reputation for giving accurate, factual information, your posts will be likely to favorably received by the members of this forum.  If you have the opposite reputation, your posts will not be likely to be received well by the members of this forum.  That's just the way reputations work. 

[Sancho_proudfoot]

I am not going to quote and repost Brillohead's post above, but do want to say that the comments he made express my views far more eloquently than l ever could.  I only have (had, now) one member (thorben-hendrik) on my ignore list, due to his extreme bias and selective choice of photographs (since amply debunked) to attempt to support his anti-RCL stance.  Sadly l have now added sisocialworker to the list for the same reasons. IMO, these forums are better without them.

Edited June 12, 2019 by Sancho_proudfoot
Typo

[Bloodgem]

9 hours ago, little britain said:

rather like a Berni Inn of the 70s.

😊 That name is a blast from the past.

[little britain]

1 hour ago, Bloodgem said:

😊 That name is a blast from the past.

I’ll be having the prawn cocktail, steak and Black Forest gateau then....

[Sancho_proudfoot]

50 minutes ago, little britain said:

I’ll be having the prawn cocktail, steak and Black Forest gateau then....

 

With a schooner of Bristol Cream Sherry, please.......

[little britain]

5 minutes ago, Sancho_proudfoot said:

 

With a schooner of Bristol Cream Sherry, please.......

Mateus Rose for me...

[icsys]

13 hours ago, LoisGriffin1 said:

My only dislike has been the main dining room. It feels rushed and is so loud. The waiters seem to be overworked in there too.

 

I was surprised to be asked for my dessert order when ordering my starter and main. Is this a new thing? 

 

Wasn't rushed for us, I guess it depends on the servers.

 

I'm not a fan of being asked for my dessert order when ordering my starter and main either.

This has been happening for a while now. Possibly because the waiters are overworked / have too many tables and this makes service a bit easier for them.

[Sancho_proudfoot]

14 hours ago, LoisGriffin1 said:

 

 

I was surprised to be asked for my dessert order when ordering my starter and main. Is this a new thing? 

 

 

 

 

We encountered this for the first time on the Brilliance in May 2018. At the time, we thought it may have been peculiar to "smaller" ships, but it seems to be rolling out fleetwide.

 

Not an issue, just a very minor change.

[sisocialworker]

11 hours ago, brillohead said:

The sad fact is, everyone has a reputation, and almost everyone learns the story of "The Little Boy Who Cried Wolf" at a very young age.  

If you really are, as you allude, a Senior Instructor Social Worker, you're well familiar with a term called "poor historian".  For those not in the medical field, it's exactly as it sounds -- someone whose story is hard to follow, doesn't match up with facts, changes from one telling to the next, etc. 

We run into poor historians in many demographics -- some are elderly people who forget what medications they take or what year they had a heart attack, some have actual dementia issues and don't even know that they have heart problems or high blood pressure or whatever, some are substance abusers who are either hiding the facts or creating stories to get more drugs or they have fried their brains to the point that they legitimately can't remember, some are psychiatric patients who have mental reasons for saying the things they do, some are just on the low end of the intelligence scale and don't have the mental capacity to comprehend their own medical situation.  

Whenever we have a "poor historian" patient, we take everything with a grain of salt (or, in many cases, several shakers full of salt).  We do our own research, ask family members or caregivers for history, look up medical and pharmacy records, etc., rather than just taking the patient's word for everything.  

In this particular thread's situation, the OP is a very well known poor historian on these boards, with a very specific agenda.  While every individual is entitled to their own opinion, everyone who reads that opinion is also allowed to take the message with a grain of salt -- or, in this case, several shakers full of salt -- and to do their own research to get to the truth of the matter. 

I don't know if the OP has dementia or substance abuse problems or psychiatric problems or intelligence problems, and I really don't care what their reason is for posting the way they do on this forum.  I just know that I pretty much don't believe anything that comes out of that person's posts.  I have that right, just as you have the right to believe whatever you want to believe.  

But the fact of the matter is, reputations matter.  If you have a reputation for giving accurate, factual information, your posts will be likely to favorably received by the members of this forum.  If you have the opposite reputation, your posts will not be likely to be received well by the members of this forum.  That's just the way reputations work. 

my profession is as I said ....while many of you here seem to know the OP and his "history"...I do/did not, despite being on the boards for many years, so I take his post as accurate, and as with all posts a grain of salt....sorry to see that some people here "block" others, and now it seems me for voicing an opinion different from theirs....the intolerance is sad...just voicing your differing opinion should be fine....open dialog rules the day, thanks for sharing @brillohead 

[sisocialworker]

6 hours ago, Sancho_proudfoot said:

I am not going to quote and repost Brillohead's post above, but do want to say that the comments he made express my views far more eloquently than l ever could.  I only have (had, now) one member (thorben-hendrik) on my ignore list, due to his extreme bias and selective choice of photographs (since amply debunked) to attempt to support his anti-RCL stance.  Sadly l have now added sisocialworker to the list for the same reasons. IMO, these forums are better without them.

didn't know my opinions presented "extreme bias and anti RCI stance.....you are indeed intolerant of differing opinions here and probably in all areas 

[brillohead]

8 hours ago, sisocialworker said:

didn't know my opinions presented "extreme bias and anti RCI stance.....you are indeed intolerant of differing opinions here and probably in all areas 

No need to go diagnosing people.  That's not your job in this setting.  

And whether you believe it or not, you HAVE been putting forth a rather biased stance in this thread.  If you go back and read it from the beginning, and knowing now that the OP is a well-known poor historian on this forum, you'll see that you appear to have taken the OP's opinion as Divine Truth and you've formed an opinion that the ships is a rust-bucket while disregarding the many, many, many comments to the contrary. 

It appears that YOU are the one with the problem, intolerant of differing opinions.... 

[sisocialworker]

55 minutes ago, brillohead said:

No need to go diagnosing people.  That's not your job in this setting.  

And whether you believe it or not, you HAVE been putting forth a rather biased stance in this thread.  If you go back and read it from the beginning, and knowing now that the OP is a well-known poor historian on this forum, you'll see that you appear to have taken the OP's opinion as Divine Truth and you've formed an opinion that the ships is a rust-bucket while disregarding the many, many, many comments to the contrary. 

It appears that YOU are the one with the problem, intolerant of differing opinions.... 

i never discounted other opinion, just stated mine and what I think, and supported the OP and his pics,you all say he is not being honest, This is the first encounter I've had with him...I never said anyone else was wrong....when alluding to "OP as not knowing if he has  dementia or substance abuse problems or psychiatric problems or intelligence problems"...is making suggesting a diagnosis..I was following your lead

Edited June 12, 2019 by sisocialworker

[brillohead]

9 minutes ago, sisocialworker said:

i never discounted other opinion, just stated mine and what I think...I never said anyone else was wrong....when alluding to "OP as not knowing if he has  dementia or substance abuse problems or psychiatric problems or intelligence problems"...is making suggesting a diagnosis..I was following your lead

Whatever floats your boat.

Have a nice cruise.

[sisocialworker]

10 minutes ago, brillohead said:

Whatever floats your boat.

Have a nice cruise.

you too

[Bloodgem]

11 hours ago, brillohead said:

 If you go back and read it from the beginning, and knowing now that the OP is a well-known poor historian on this forum, you'll see that you appear to have taken the OP's opinion as Divine Truth and you've formed an opinion that the ships is a rust-bucket while disregarding the many, many, many comments to the contrary. 

Can I point out that Thorben-Hendrik did not start this thread, cruisecookie did. 

 

The thread started by Thorben-Hendrik, the one with the pics is:  

 

[Sancho_proudfoot]

Yeah, cruisecookie is"innocent" in the subsequent discussions.  The real culprits are Thorben-Hendrik with his carefully selected photos (long since debunked) and sisocialworker with his blanket condemnation of all things RCCL

[brillohead]

3 hours ago, Bloodgem said:

Can I point out that Thorben-Hendrik did not start this thread, cruisecookie did. 

 

The thread started by Thorben-Hendrik, the one with the pics is:  

 

Sorry, my mistake -- I've been following both threads, and I mixed them up in my mind.  

Thank you for the correction!

[sisocialworker]

2 hours ago, Sancho_proudfoot said:

Yeah, cruisecookie is"innocent" in the subsequent discussions.  The real culprits are Thorben-Hendrik with his carefully selected photos (long since debunked) and sisocialworker with his blanket condemnation of all things RCCL

lump me in with my "blanket"   

Edited June 13, 2019 by sisocialworker