Jump to content
Cruise Critic Community

PATRLR

Members
  • Content Count

    758
  • Joined

About PATRLR

  • Rank
    Cool Cruiser

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. If your point is that the consumer will eventually pay in the form of higher bank fees, sure. The consumer always pays in the end. But if your point is that your chargeback may not be honored and you the consumer might never get a refund for that cruise, you would be wrong. If NCL vanishes today, takes off and runs away with the money, whatever - the consumer is not the one left holding the bag, the bank is.
  2. "accident to or from machinery, boilers, or latent defects" So we are leaving port, an azipod dies, Captain decides to cancel the cruise, heads back to port and disembarks everyone. NCL is off the hook. Wow.
  3. Yes, of course. My mistake. What I should have written was: "the first use of the term "friendly fraud" in this thread was your post #103". julig22 told me to stop dropping "friendly" when in fact "friendly" hadn't been used in any post I was commenting on.
  4. This: Lead to this: It's scary how common the concept of revising history on the fly has become: @julig22 says @BirdTravels isn't accusing people of fraud. @Julig22 also says I shouldn't shorten "friendly fraud" to "fraud". Well here are the facts: First use of "fraud" in this thread is post #5: Bird then comes along and doubles down on the term and creates a phrase of his own: So @julig22 don't tell me not to shorten "friendly fraud". "Friendly fraud" wasn't the term being used. Let's continue with our review of the history.... I didn't really care for Bird accusing me of committing fraud and told him so: So Bird adds in that what we are doing is also not legal. And for good measure continues with the fraud nonsense (I still don't see "friendly fraud" that I am accused of shortening😞 I don't understand how anyone could read those replies from Bird and not interpret them to be accusing people like me of committing fraud and to not be stating that by doing a charge back I am accusing NCL of fraud. How could Bird's language be any more clear and how on earth could anyone interpret his words any other way? By the way @julig22, the first use of the term "friendly fraud" was your post #103. That's the post where you tried say no one was accusing anyone of fraud. Perhaps the problem here is that you are adding "friendly" to everyone's use of fraud and maybe if you didn't do that you could more accurately follow along with this discussion.
  5. Look at BirdTravels posts 63 and 65 in this thread. He says we are accusing NCL of fraud and he accuses us of fraud. "friendly fraud" is a term that appears to be made up by the credit card companies to describe what are essentially mistakes. Far from the common definition of fraud. In my case I told the credit card company the whole story including NCL's refund "after 90 days" and the fact that I didn't agree to wait that long. No fraud, just honest reporting of facts. And BirdTravels never used the term "friendly" when he was wrongly accusing us of committing fraud.
  6. Call it what you want, later this month when I pay this month's credit card bill, I will be paying $X less than I would otherwise. I'll put that $X into savings until I am ready to book another vacation. I have the money now. That's a refund as far as I am concerned. (I get that there is a scenario where I may have to give it back. Fine, you win that point. But, I still have my refund.) His insistence that those of us who are doing the charge back are committing a fraud is 100% incorrect. His insistence that we are accusing NCL of fraud is 100% incorrect.
  7. Oh please. You are not agreeing to anything. You are requesting a refund because NCL said that is what you needed to do to get your money back. Regarding what any of us told our banks, you have no idea what I told my bank. I told them exactly what was going on and I told them I didn't want to wait the 90 days. I never said NCL didn't deliver on this fictitious agreement you think I made with them. Nor did I tell my bank NCL didn't do anything other than not deliver my cruise. Keep saying we're committing fraud all you want. We aren't.
  8. I've read that they have arranged financing. So, they effectively do, or could, have the money now.
  9. I'm confused. You missed all kinds of ports, you missed Cape Town (great city by the way, the picture of Table Mountain had me reminiscing), they ran out of stuff on ship yet I don't see any complaining? I don't get it. 🙂 Great report, I enjoyed reading it.
  10. I should be on the Encore right now. I try not to think about it as I am instead at work.
  11. Saying something that is wrong, repeatedly, won't make it right. The charge back process, per the FCBA, barley gets into fraud. It discusses unauthorized charges, but, it also discusses other opportunities for charge back including services not delivered (the situation here). Services not delivered is not necessarily fraud. It can be fraud, but, not necessarily and certainly not by definition. And I am not making a claim of fraud with NCL. There is nothing illegal about using my bank's charge back process for a service I did not receive, especially if I am 100% truthful with my statements. You continue to make negative comments about my behavior with no justification other than you just don't like that I and others have done it. If you are going to continue to say I did something illegal, or, I've committed fraud, please provide supporting documentation for those claims. Yes frivolous is a legal term - when used with lawsuits. Here in cruise critic, used with charge backs, it's a common term. Please stop trying to BS people by making things up to make yourself look smarter than everyone else. There you go again with your BS "fraud" claims. Keep saying it, I'm sure some fools will start believing you. You would never succeed in making the argument that clicking on the submit means one accepted their terms. There was no explicit acknowledgement of terms on the web site so you are referring to an implicit acknowledgement/acceptance. That would never hold up in common sense and of course never in a US court.
  12. What a load of crap. I told my bank exactly what happened, including NCL's 90 day refund intention and words similar to "I don't want to wait 90 days". I never accused NCL of fraud and I never said anything wrong or committed any fraud. You have a hell of a lot of nerve accusing people who are doing perfectly legal things of fraud just because you don't like what they did. When my card bill is due later this month, I will pay my bank some amount less than what I would if I didn't do the charge back. I'll take that difference and move it to my savings. At that point I have the money. I may have to eventually pay it back, but I have it. That fact is indisputable. (for the record, my bank ha already closed my case)
  13. That would be the one. 2001 though would be post Dolphin Line, and not long before she was sold for scrap. I loved that ship. Have some great memories of her when she was part of the Dolphin line.
  14. Ocean Breeze - is that the same Ocean Breeze that sailed as part of Dolphin Cruise Lines back in the mid 90s?
×
×
  • Create New...