Re: cruiseshopping web site

Bring up issues from 1999 and trying to point out that I come and go on this
newsgroup, is rather a useless point. Coming and going on this newsgroup,
would not be a surprise to many, for based on these conservations of the
past, it is apparent that some feel they actually own or control what really
goes on here. As to my coming and going on this newsgroup, that is by
design. As for your so-called long memory, too bad it has
seems to soured with time.

Likewise, it appears like many of these issues were already discussed
before, yet from your rebuttals, it looks like they were not resolved in
your mind. Actually, I think they were, but since you are hell bend on bring
up the past; pointing out that not everyone seems to agree with you, I guess
this require a little more dialogue. Now, this is actually not meant for
you, for that is obviously a moot point. It is simply to help clear up your
misleading
information, not for your benefit, but for those who may be confused by your
incorrect speculations.


> 1) You aren't my "opponent". You don't have anything I want and I don't
> have anything that you could take away from me. I am not in any kind of
> competition with you. All I did was hold you responsible for what you are
> saying and pointed out your disclaimers.

I'm glad you're so confident in your business endeavors that you don't feel
I am your opponent or I don't have anything you want anyway. Likewise, I
always welcome ideas, suggestions and even constructive criticism. It is
just that there is a big difference between an open debate on concerns, even
a disagreement on select issues, than stooping to name calling, fault
finding and ridicule. You may not like what I have to say, but that sure
didn't stop you from borrowing on my disclaimers; that is, the parts you
liked, but seeing fit to mean-mouth the rest. In truth, it is the general
public who must
decide for themselves. I simply present the facts as I see them, not finding
it necessary to knock my so-called competition. Therefore, let the public
decide for themselves.


> 2) You didn't need my help to make you look bad. People were pointing out
> the flaws in your posts before I got here. What I wrote this morning was
> nothing more than your own words thrown back at you. I'll defer to Harry
> Truman who said "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth and they
> think it's hell."

Don't worry, if I or anyone else seems to present any information that is
perceived as incorrect by a few of these posters waiting in the wings, we
can all rest assure they will surface soon enough. Unfortunately, other than
a few who have the ability to present information with a civil tongue and
some degree of professionalism, others seem more bent on tooting their own
horn than in really adding anything constructive to the conservation. You
may not always agree with what I have to say, or even how I say it, but I do
have a right to say it. Yet, it is a good debate that is that I am looking
for, but resorting to name calling and false acquisitions simple ends any
constructive dialogue.

John




"George Leppla" <george@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:y_-dnQuFqveeBSjeRVn-iA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "John Sisker" <jsisker@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>
>> I'm a bit flattered and honored that you would take all this time and
>> effort
>
> Don't be. I have a long memory and you and I have been around this block
> before as long ago as 1999. You come to r.t.c., mouth off then leave.
> You
> haven't posted here in over three years this time.
>
>> Even though, whether it is you or me, this newsgroup is still only
>> opinions.
>
> Welllll... kinda, except that you say things like "Yet, my personal and
> professional recommendation would be Royal Caribbean
> International (RCI)." Are you now saying that your "professional
> recommendation" isn't any more valid than any Tom, *** or Harry's
> uninformed opinion?
>
> If so, I agree with you. In fact just this morning I wrote. "Don't come
> crying to me if you are gullible enough to believe everything you read on
> the internet." It was part of my disclaimer.
>
>> Or possibly, this is nothing more than the old political adage of trying
>> to make your opponent look bad, if you really have nothing constructive
>> to
>> add yourself.
>
> 1) You aren't my "opponent". You don't have anything I want and I don't
> have anything that you could take away from me. I am not in any kind of
> competition with you. All I did was hold you responsible for what you are
> saying and pointed out your disclaimers. On your website
> http://www.mfghomeowners.net/index1.htm you say:
>
> "If your opinion is different from that expressed, let's hear from you and
> why." That's what I did. You certainly don't have a problem with that,
> do
> you? Freedom of Speech and all that.
>
> 2) You didn't need my help to make you look bad. People were pointing out
> the flaws in your posts before I got here. What I wrote this morning was
> nothing more than your own words thrown back at you. I'll defer to Harry
> Truman who said "I don't give them Hell. I just tell the truth and they
> think it's hell."
>
>>Maybe I should have this attorney be the one contact you.
>
> My, my. Maybe you DO have a problem with this Freedom of Speech thing.
> First you are going to report me to Princess for some perceived infraction
> and now you are going to have your lawyer contact me. Please do. I'll
> feel free to publicly post any unsolicited correspondence I receive from
> him/her or you. Here is my address:
>
> George Leppla
> Countryside Travel
> 102 Wendy Circle
> Coatesville, PA 19320
>
> I am sure since you are a big proponent of Free Speech that you certainly
> can't be taking offence to anything I have written here. For example,
> there
> is a yet another disclaimer on your website at
> http://www.mfghomeowners.net/index1.htm I like it so much that I will
> borrow it.
>
> "All of the articles, information, and/or materials contained in this or
> any
> other of my posts are personal opinions, editorial comments, and/or an
> expression of Freedom of Speech rights. It is not intended to render any
> specific and/or legal advice, nor to disparage, slander, and/or libel any
> person and/or organization.
>
> Freedom of Speech works two ways. Nothing anyone says and/or brings to
> light
> is without warrant, foundation, or cause in the opinion of the
> contributor(s)."
>
> And still... no animals were harmed in the writing of this post.
>
>
> --
> George Leppla http://www.countryside-travel.com
>
> Cruise Specials BLOG http://www.countryside-travel.com/3834677_6105.htm
> May 20, 2006, Caribbean Princess - http://cruisemaster.com/caribprin.htm
> October 29, 2006 - SLEAZY 4! http://cruisemaster.com/sleazy4.htm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




.

Loading