Dear Mr. And Mrs. Royal Caribbean

Dear Mr. And Mrs. Royal Caribbean,

On behalf of all of Cruise Critic contributors, their families and their families families and all future generation Cruise Critic contributors, I'd like to offer a sincere, heart-felt apology.

Sometimes we forget that it's our words that can hurt so much.

We never meant to personally attack your children and realize that we may have inadvertently hurt your feelings in the process.

You must be so proud of the ships that your birthed and raised so well.

We will continue to monitor our choice of language in an effort to repair the damage that we have done to your souls every time we say something that might project a less than perfect image of your children.

After-all, we are all God's children and therefore we are all perfect!

So, to all of my dysfunctional Cruise Critic family, I ask that you please sensor yourself and any opinions that you might have, unless they go to the better good of our society.

And so, it is with a full heart and empty stomach that I say, on behalf of the objective and open minded family of mine, that I am so sorry if we have hurt your families feelings with our misinterpreted personal attacks.

[emoji849]

Thank you!!!!!!

Great letter! Looking forward to reading the flood of retractions and apologies following the Great Anthem Massacre.

Must say that a unique reaction to having been spanked.

Nothing is perfect. However, trying to ruin a good man's career is hateful.

JC

Must say that a unique reaction to having been spanked.

 

 

 

Nothing is perfect. However, trying to ruin a good man's career is hateful.

 

 

 

JC

Agree, but this letter wasn't about a particular post, but rather about how people who express anything that doesn't put RC in a positive light are chastised by people who appear as if someone has attacked them personally.

On the other hand, there are definitely people who are just here to get their 15 minutes of fame and they too should take a flying leap.

Must say that a unique reaction to having been spanked.

 

Nothing is perfect. However, trying to ruin a good man's career is hateful.

 

JC

The captain had no intention to make a grand slam exit from his career by jeopardizing 6000 people. We simply don't know everything leading up to the decision to sail that particular day, despite storm warnings. Ships have sailed before with adverse conditions, but this storm did not follow the "rules" and got cranky.

This whole thing is the definition of a Catch-22.

If they wouldn't have sailed and the storm moved or dissipated folks would be screaming about how much Royal sucks and how Royal ruined their vacation. They sail (like they have thousands of times in the past) and things went sideways and now Royal purposely endangered their lives.

Best case scenario now is people sue and Royal settles. Worst case scenario the government gets involved and slaps all kinds of crazy rules on sailing in potential bad weather from US ports and all the cruise lines stop leaving from US ports and we all get to tender out into international waters on embarkation/debarkation days for some insane additional cost.

Agree, but this letter wasn't about a particular post, but rather about how people who express anything that doesn't put RC in a positive light are chastised by people who appear as if someone has attacked them personally.

On the other hand, there are definitely people who are just here to get their 15 minutes of fame and they too should take a flying leap.

Already this thread is straying from the OP's point and back into vehement defense.

I understand what the OP has said and agree completely. Agreeing with him has nothing to do with which side of the issue one takes.

The issue is the vehemence of defense that is worthy when defending family and friends, not a corporate entity.

The same thing happened on the Carnival board, especially after the Triumph fiasco. Vehemence of defense of an entity. There was (and still is) an outcry that media coverage was unfair to Carnival, unwarranted, and prejudicial. It has been upgraded to the point of conspiracy theory. Right after the problem developed on Anthem, there was a thread wondering if RCCL would have the same level of scrutiny. My kid was punished; yours should be punished just as severely.

And the same irrational behavior has now emerged again.

What in anyone's make-up makes it so important to attack and defend. Only my family deserves that level of vehement attention.

That is the OP's point.

My personal take is that many RCCL cruisers react as if it is a condemnation of their preferred choice. That's identical to what happened on Carnival. Personal insult.

I have three RCCL cruises booked over the next 11 months. The events on Anthem change nothing. But, I feel no need to aggressively defend.

Keep something in mind; a representative from RCCL made this statement, "We made a mistake."

I imagine that this thread will immediately go back to defense mode.

This whole thing is the definition of a Catch-22.

 

If they wouldn't have sailed and the storm moved or dissipated folks would be screaming about how much Royal sucks and how Royal ruined their vacation. They sail (like they have thousands of times in the past) and things went sideways and now Royal purposely endangered their lives.

 

Best case scenario now is people sue and Royal settles. Worst case scenario the government gets involved and slaps all kinds of crazy rules on sailing in potential bad weather from US ports and all the cruise lines stop leaving from US ports and we all get to tender out into international waters on embarkation/debarkation days for some insane additional cost.

This might be the dumbest and most asinine thing i have ever read. RCCL is a company. They dont have feeling. While i enjoy my time here the fan boys among you are insane. Companies can be negligent, they are responsible for their mistakes, they do not need you fine people to defend them. They do not care about you, only about your cash.

By being sheep you allow these companies to walk all over your rights. I truly hope that this post and the responses were all in jest.

Keep something in mind; a representative from RCCL made this statement, "We made a mistake."

You've made the same mistake as others that have quoted RCI - you should have quoted the whole sentence to get the meaning - the whole quote is " We made a mistake in not providing you with the vacation you expected" - totally different meaning than your partial quote. Don't worry, ambulance chasing lawyers will make the same mistake in court in trying to claim that RCI admitted to a mistake.:cool:

You've made the same mistake as others that have quoted RCI - you should have quoted the whole sentence to get the meaning - the whole quote is " We made a mistake in not providing you with the vacation you expected" - totally different meaning than your partial quote. Don't worry, ambulance chasing lawyers will make the same mistake in court in trying to claim that RCI admitted to a mistake.:cool:

Yes, classic example of taking something out of context.

You've made the same mistake as others that have quoted RCI - you should have quoted the whole sentence to get the meaning - the whole quote is " We made a mistake in not providing you with the vacation you expected" - totally different meaning than your partial quote. Don't worry, ambulance chasing lawyers will make the same mistake in court in trying to claim that RCI admitted to a mistake.:cool:

A favor. Could you explain how the additional wording changes the meaning?

At no time on any of the threads did I point a finger of blame on the company or captain. But you tell me not to worry because ambulance chasing lawyers will get involved. What in anything I have posted indicates a desire for lawyers to get involved.

"We made a mistake."

"We made a mistake in not providing you with the vacation you expected."

What is the difference in substance or meaning?

iheartbda. Jump right in also. What is the difference that makes this a classic example of taking things out of context?

Oh, and imogees are just so cool!

Lots of strong opinions coming from the comfort of home. How high were the winds in your living room? Were the waves coming under your front door?

I've placed no blame. You've chosen to think so, but it's not there. And thus the OP's point.

 

"We made a mistake."

 

"We made a mistake in not providing you with the vacation you expected."

 

What is the difference in substance or meaning?

 

The lawyers and some on the forum will take the first quote and say that RCI is admitting to mistakenly leaving port, knowing what will it lead to (endangering people's lives).

The second quote simply says sorry you didn't enjoy your vacation.

I thought that is obvious to most.

This might be the dumbest and most asinine thing i have ever read. RCCL is a company. They dont have feeling. While i enjoy my time here the fan boys among you are insane. Companies can be negligent, they are responsible for their mistakes, they do not need you fine people to defend them. They do not care about you, only about your cash.

 

By being sheep you allow these companies to walk all over your rights. I truly hope that this post and the responses were all in jest.

Exactly. And they will soon twist your words. Where you have correctly stated that companies CAN be negligent, it will be taken and attacked as if you stated they ARE negligent. There will be much more our opinion is right and any other opinion, including those who actually experience it, are obviously wrong. And that will go on ad nauseam.

A favor. Could you explain how the additional wording changes the meaning?

At no time on any of the threads did I point a finger of blame on the company or captain. But you tell me not to worry because ambulance chasing lawyers will get involved. What in anything I have posted indicates a desire for lawyers to get involved.

 

"We made a mistake."

 

"We made a mistake in not providing you with the vacation you expected."

 

What is the difference in substance or meaning?

 

iheartbda. Jump right in also. What is the difference that makes this a classic example of taking things out of context?

 

Oh, and imogees are just so cool!

 

Lots of strong opinions coming from the comfort of home. How high were the winds in your living room? Were the waves coming under your front door?

 

I've placed no blame. You've chosen to think so, but it's not there. And thus the OP's point.

The difference in a few words is significant. Example, I made a mistake I killed your dog.

I made a mistake.

Think that is the same thing. Without saying what the mistake is it could be anything, or in your case, you can imply the killing of the dog.

Implying a meaning that was not stated is wrong.

Being wrong doesn't make you unique, but it does make you wrong.

JC

Was there really a need for this thread to begin with? :cool:

Can we just let Anthem sail and give it REST!

I dare say we have a few more days before we realize that peace. She'll have to get back to port after the cruise first.

Oh gosh, how I long for the usual posts about most of the nonsense! :D

WOW! This conversation has gone painfully sideways!

WOW! This conversation has gone painfully sideways!

Not really, considering...

A favor. Could you explain how the additional wording changes the meaning?

 

"We made a mistake."

 

"We made a mistake in not providing you with the vacation you expected."

 

What is the difference in substance or meaning?

 

iheartbda. Jump right in also. What is the difference that makes this a classic example of taking things out of context?

Oh, and imogees are just so cool!

 

Lots of strong opinions coming from the comfort of home. How high were the winds in your living room? Were the waves coming under your front door?

 

I've placed no blame. You've chosen to think so, but it's not there. And thus the OP's point.

XPC and Biker explained it quite well.

I think most understand the OP's point. Just so I am not taking anything out of context by eliminating some of your post, what I took out has no bearing on the answer.;)

What imogees?:confused:

never mind

WOW! This conversation has gone painfully sideways!

Agree.

All these Anthem threads remind me of the movie Groundhog Day. The same thing, over and over and over. But wait, wasn't there something about a missed forecast in that movie? And this sailed close to groundhog day.:)

Can't we just get back to normal things like chair hogs, gaming the drink package, and smoking on the balcony?

The difference in a few words is significant. Example, I made a mistake I killed your dog.

 

I made a mistake.

 

Think that is the same thing. Without saying what the mistake is it could be anything, or in your case, you can imply the killing of the dog.

 

Implying a meaning that was not stated is wrong.

 

Being wrong doesn't make you unique, but it does make you wrong.

 

JC

Uh, okay.

But your response leaves me with another question:

She said "in not providing the vacation you expected." Agreed?

So, what IS the "mistake" they made when she said "We made a mistake"?

And it's not enough to say well, the mistake was not providing you the vacation you expected. That's the outcome. A mistake is what causes the outcome.

I don't know if they made a mistake in their decision. I'm not suggesting it's fodder for lawyers. Some situations are no win; this one was. They chose the wording, not me.

Uh, okay.

 

But your response leaves me with another question:

 

She said "in not providing the vacation you expected." Agreed?

 

So, what IS the "mistake" they made when she said "We made a mistake"?

 

And it's not enough to say well, the mistake was not providing you the vacation you expected. That's the outcome. A mistake is what causes the outcome.

 

I don't know if they made a mistake in their decision. I'm not suggesting it's fodder for lawyers. Some situations are no win; this one was. They chose the wording, not me.

Could care less what a RCI PR hack statement says, but I hate when people manipulate any statement to make it more than the original statement.

Clearly, it sounds much worse when it implies whatever you want it to mean, than what the innocuous PR hack said.

JC