Hello from Volendam!

[hammybee]

We watched them turn quite a few people away on formal night. One raised the "I paid blah blah blah" the gentleman at the door agreed with him but said "I'm sorry sir this is formal attire only". The man left.

 

Yes enforcement does, on occasion, happen. I think it unlikely to happen when, as reported, 25% or about 360 passengers, decide to dress casually.

[DFD1]

I don't go 'round improperly dressed on board. That being said, I'd not be happy about a stranger taking my picture...for any reason.

 

We all know what people in shorts and tennis shoes look like.

[NoNoNanette]

Posting these pictures on a public forum is DESPICABLE.

 

How I wish that these unknowing individuals were aware of this.

[terrydtx]

I realize that the dress code issue has become a huge sub-thread within this wonderful thread (and perhaps too much said already) but, having seen Greg's photos of the slobs at sea, I believe more than ever that HAL really should designate a separate section within the main dining room that is set aside for the tee shirts and shorts crowd on formal nights. Maybe even a separate menu (corn dogs and chili come to mind). Perhaps as Lillulu stated earlier, they should simply be escorted to the elevators and sent to the Lido.;)

 

They do have a separate section, its called room service in the privacy of their cabin. Are corn dogs and chili on the room service menu?

[FinelyRetired]

That sounds to me like a prescription for some pretty ugly - perhaps physical - confrontations. BUT - if you can get pictures that include faces, send them to me first and I'll blur the faces for you! :D

John:

 

That's a nice offer and an excellent idea to blur the faces.

 

While I'm one of the ones who is often "over the top" about the lack of respect for dress codes, I was uncomfortable seeing their faces.

[Old As Dirt Mom]

I'm enjoying this Volendam cruise travelogue very much. Great writing, great photos! Thank you.

 

HOWEVER, I agree with others here that taking photos of unsuspecting folks in order to post those photos on a message board, solely for the purpose of castigating and ridiculing them, demonstrates a lack of good judgment. I'm sorry this otherwise excellent thread had to be thus derailed.

 

(Disclaimer: I do have all avatars, signatures and photo links turned off, so I can't see them unless I click on them. I have chosen not to click on the photos of the dress code violators in order to respect their privacy.)

 

Karin

[flapr]

I find the unkind paparazzi-like behavior and name calling of self-appointed fashion police extremely unconscionable.

 

I would certainly have a problem with being intentionally photographed to become the subject of ridicule in a public forum, and deem the practice a serious invasion of my privacy.

[coily]

In my view, people who chose to so flagrantly disregard the dress code by purposefully wearing shorts, tee shirts, flip flops, etc. to the main dining room on formal nights are making a statement that they will not be bound by the conventional dress requirement. Their photos are not being taken in their cabins, but in public areas where everyone is "fair game" for a photo. No "invasion of privacy" issue exists in a public venue. Courtesy might require a reuest to snap their pic, but courtesy also dictates they don't parade around in their garb. For most of them, they probably thrive on the attention they're getting.

[jhannah]

I fail to see any privacy issue at all. These folks were, as pointed out, not in their cabins behind closed doors. They were in public places. The same as folks walking down the street in your town.

[terrydtx]

Yes enforcement does, on occasion, happen. I think it unlikely to happen when, as reported, 25% or about 360 passengers, decide to dress casually.

 

Using the rational that because 25-30% of the passengers refuse to obey the dress code policy and with such a large minority it is too hard to enforce then, it is ok to allow them to eat in the DR. Using the same rational, if these same 25-30%decided to all light up a big cigar in the DR during dinner (also against HAL policy) and since they are such a large minority and too many to enforce or tick off lets let them have their cigars and if they annoy the other 70-70% that’s too bad!!:eek: :eek:

[DFD1]

Rev: Me thinks you're in the soup.

[jhannah]

The offensive posts are now on YOU TUBE.

Posts on You Tube? I did a search and couldn't find them. Lots of other dress code stuff, though. Can you provide the link, please?

[lillulu]

Terrydtx

 

We were just on her Oct 17th. Would they have already changed the

Maitre D?

 

Now Smart Casual nights they really didn't enforce the dress code, only formal night is when I noticed it.

[HeatherInFlorida]

It might have been better if Greg had cut off their heads or was able to blur the faces for the pictures, but at the same time I recall an awful lot of scathing posts right here on CC against those of us who enjoy formal nights and like to dress for them. We were called all kinds of names over many months.

 

So I'm not sure how that was okay, but this isn't. In full disclosure Greg posted pictures of formally dressed people with non-blurred faces as well. There are some who might ridicule those pictures ... it's all in the eyes of the beholder:) .

 

Still, in my heart of hearts I recognize it's probably not particularly nice.

 

I doubt seriously the photos are on YouTube which I believe is made up of videos. Never going there unless someone sends me a link, I can't say positively.

[RuthC]

It might have been better if Greg had cut off their heads....

The mental image is probably not what you intended. :D

[terrydtx]

The mental image is probably not what you intended. :D

 

I had the same mental image:eek: :eek:

[RuthC]

I had the same mental image:eek: :eek:

Would have solved the problem for the last formal night, though, wouldn't it. :D

[mamaofami]

I certainly hope those pictures weren't posted on you tube, but if they were, IMHO they would have to have been posted by someone reading this particular thread and this particular board. I can't believe any of us would do that!

[NoNoNanette]

Ami's Momma :) -

 

In the past few months, I've learned that this board is being monitored by both "secular" and "spiritual" individuals.

 

The fact that these photos have popped up on another WWW location doesn't surprise me a bit.

[spacecat]

In my view, people who chose to so flagrantly disregard the dress code by purposefully wearing shorts, tee shirts, flip flops, etc. to the main dining room on formal nights are making a statement that they will not be bound by the conventional dress requirement. Their photos are not being taken in their cabins, but in public areas where everyone is "fair game" for a photo. No "invasion of privacy" issue exists in a public venue. Courtesy might require a reuest to snap their pic, but courtesy also dictates they don't parade around in their garb. For most of them, they probably thrive on the attention they're getting.

 

It seems apparent that these pictures were not taken incidentally; they were taken with the specific intention of showing what some yahoo thought was the "wrong" way to dress. Its one thing if you take a picture of something and someone happens to be in the background of the picture - but this was ON PURPOSE. That is NOT fair game. I doubt these people are looking for any attention; how would you know anything about them? This is a disgrace and an apology is called for. By several people.

 

Shari

[thomasale]

Public place= fair game...ask the papparrzi...Rev did you ever think you would be in that league????

 

I couldn't care less one way or the other and FWIW I am glad to see a little controversy here

[NoNoNanette]

If it is proven that a "man of God" took these pics, then I am going to forward all of this to my mother in law who is making it her lifes mission to have me enter a church, any church, as my proof of the hypocrisy I have told her I have always wanted to stay away from.

 

And before anyone slams me to tell me its off the topic, you're right and I agree....there are plenty of other places I can go to give my view of religion, but since it was brought up.....

 

Shari

 

The Methodist Church is going to be very interested in your post, Shari. (Which is saddening) :(

[spacecat]

The Methodist Church is going to be very interested in your post, Shari. (Which is saddening) :(

I have over 50 years worth of practice! I can handle it!;)

[maxout]

As requested!

 

[sapper1]

If it is proven that a "man of God" took these pics, then I am going to forward all of this to my mother in law who is making it her lifes mission to have me enter a church, any church, as my proof of the hypocrisy I have told her I have always wanted to stay away from.

 

And before anyone slams me to tell me its off the topic, you're right and I agree....there are plenty of other places I can go to give my view of religion, but since it was brought up.....

 

Shari

I feel that you misread my statement. In no way was I suggesting that religion is hypocrisy. I was commenting on the uncharitable actions of one individual. You could refer to the action as hypocrisy that flies in the face of the ideals he is supposed to represent.

PLEASE----I am not trying to start another hot topic.---Just clarifying my statement.