Re: rec.travel.cruises - Charter - FAQ's


Phil wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:
Reef Fish wrote:
Phil wrote:
Folks

The Cruise Review Archive http://www.seacruisereviews.com has 0
new reviews since the last posting of the Charter, > Phil

rec.travel.cruises (unmoderated)
Phil,

Does the charter allow Travel Agents to post in rtc, urging other
TAs to file FALSE ABUSE REPORTS to Google?

This was what Ray Goldenberg probably DID, to have had my posting
account blocked by Google, pending inverstigation.

This was DEFINITELY what Ray Goldenberg DID, even before I posted
my first post in rec.travel.cruises with my new posting account.

It was a case of pre-meditated, malicious, unethical, and libelous
PUBLIC URGING of Travel Agents (his friends) to file FALSE ABUSE
reports.


================================================= From: Ray
Goldenberg Date: Sat, May 13 2006 9:45 am Email: Ray Goldenberg
<r...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Groups: rec.travel.cruises

Hi Everyone,

FWIW I received this from a member of r.t.cruises this morning.

But he has now set up a new account to replace his "Large
Nassau Grouper". Recommend you pass the word to tell people to
keep hitting the "REPORT ABUSE" button. It would also be
helpful if these reports pointed out to Google that this is his
2nd account and they had already shitcanned his first one, as
this should help convince them to respond more quickly to
termininating this new account too.
================================================

I have posed several questions to Phil that have not been answered
yet, by him.

So, I'll ask for comments from those others who had cited the RTC
charter to support Ray Goldenberg's ADs, I'll ask them or anyone else
to comment on the same:

I have posted, since Ray Goldenberg's post above, in 9 different
threads, totalling at least 26 posts, with my NEW posting account.

Was ANY of them an "abuse"? Did ANYONE think any of them was an
"abuse" and hit the abuse button as Goldenberg urged? <cite the
abusive content or text>

Did you think the ABUSE by George Leppla, of LYING and making false
accusations of me, and his repeated harrassement of me within the
permissible guidelines of the RTC Charter? <I posted explicit details
about those lies, TWICE, after each of his repeated abuse>

Did you think the responses and tactics of those falsely attacking my
posts within the permissible guidelines of the RTC charter? <too
many examples for me to list>


Your comments, especially those relative to the RTC Charter, will be
appreciated.

-- Dr. Bob. (aka Reef Fish).

Bob:

I have a life other than RTC.

I have more lives other than RTC than you ever will.


I read RTC when I have the time, I do not let it dictate my life.

Neither do I. That's why I have such a low "all time posting"
record in RTC. But when I am "gang attacked" by the
Goldenberg Gang even AFTER he revealed his role of
urging others to file FALSE "abuse" complaints against me
to Google, I am not one to walk away and not DEFEND
MYSELF, as many of those who had been intimidated by
Ray and his Gang before.


I try and only post comments to the Charter of RTC as I understand it
and how it apply s here. I try and not get drawn into long protracted
threads. One has to remember this is a unmoderated news group. I am NOT
the moderator nor is anyone else.

Neither am I. But you can express your OPINION can't you?


You have talked about Usenet Rules, yet I have not seen any links posted
to support your claims. When I posted my comments on May 2nd about the
Charter I said " One could consider the "sig files" as solicitation
BUT they are allowed under news group etiquette. They should not be more
than 4 lines."

You replied "That is technically correct."

When I posted the above, I went and researched sig files. While looking
into several FAQ's about the usenet I came across several ways to write
a solicitation for your sig file and remain within the scope of news
group etiquette. That was why I worded the statement as I did above.
From what I read, I saw several examples of sig files and from what I
saw Ray's sig file is within the scope of news group etiquette.

I understand that some find Rays changes, specifically him adding
contact your Travel Agent, to the media posts unacceptable.
Having said that, Seacruise had talked about taking over the posting of
"media posts" way back when we took over posting the charter. I even
went and contacted both Princess, Seabourn and Royal Caribbean cruises
to start the ball rolling for this. Royal Caribbean sent me a PR
package on a disc (I just recently got rid of this disc as it was well
over 6 years old). Princess and Seabourn sent me on line log ons to
their pr pages. Royal Caribbeans disc included instructions on how to
edit "media posts" to include your agency name. I can not say if this is
still the case.
What I did use the disc and web page log ons for was to change the
picture on Seacruise weekly.
It was decided that Seacruise would not get into posting of "media
posts" because it would be far to time consuming. As I said I do have a
life and I don't have the time to spend daily looking for "media posts".
So as I see it the changing of those media posts is acceptable to
include contact you travel agent. In fact one could go further and
insert the travel agency name from the information I have seen from the
cruise lines. I do think TA's have taken the high road here and not
inserted their agency name for obvious reasons.
I do post media posts that I find on Vancouver as I live here. I am more
than happy to answer questions specific to Vancouver.
It was felt by those on Seacruise that Ray's and other's media posts
meet both the charter for RTC and cruise line PR departments. The sig
files also meet news group etiquette. I just wish TA's would read RTC to
see if a media post has been posted before they post their media post
for the 2nd and sometimes 3rd time days after it has been posted.

Now having said all this, I think Jim brings up a good point of Ray's
posts with not all being posted on his web page even though Ray says
"If you have missed any of my news' postings, they are available on my
web site."
I have gone to Ray's website to check on this in the past and I do agree
with Jim here. I CAN NOT find all the posts on his web page. That I do
have a problem with. I know what it takes to run a web page and it can
be time consuming, BUT I think if one says you can find it on a web page
then it should be there. That to me indicates he is willing to spend the
time on his web page to make sure the posts are posted.

During one of the many heated exchanges that have appeared here was
group cruise postings. Seacruise (Steve) agreed to take these postings
on and post 1 weekly message.
This continued up to Steve's passing away. As Seacruisereviews was
Steve's web page I had/have no access to it. I have just recently been
talking to Steve's widow and she indicates that something has to be
done. I think we will soon see a much needed update of Seacruise Reviews.

While looking at some of the different threads I have even seen links
posted to support the posters post. I think that if one is going to
post against that posters post about sig files and news group etiquette
then you need to post links to support your claims. Would you not agree?

I am not going to get drawn into what Ray may have done or what any of
Ray's supporters may have done as far getting ISP accounts pulled. That
is up to the account holder and the ISP pulling the account to deal with.

This may not be the answer you want, but I do hope it helps.

Phil - in Vancouver where it will be lovely 26°C today.

WOW!

Phil, you sure did a lot of "mouth dance" to EVADE the very explicit
questions I've asked for your OPINION, haven't you?

Notice NONE of my questions had anything to do with the number
of lines on sigs, which seemed to be your mental block.

I asked, and asked again,


I have posted, since Ray Goldenberg's post above, in 9 different
threads, totalling at least 26 posts, with my NEW posting account.

Was ANY of them an "abuse"? Did ANYONE think any of them
was an "abuse" and hit the abuse button as Goldenberg urged?
<cite the abusive content or text>

Did you think the ABUSE by George Leppla, of LYING and
making false accusations of me, and his repeated harrassement
of me within the permissible guidelines of the RTC Charter?
<I posted explicit details about those lies, TWICE, after each
of his repeated abuse>

Did you think the responses and tactics of those falsely
attacking my posts within the permissible guidelines of the RTC
charter?
<too many examples for me to list>

Your comments, especially those relative to the RTC Charter,
will be appreciated.

Ray Goldenberg had bragged that my Large_nassau_grouper
account was "shitcanned" by Google by his campaing of
FALSE ABUSE REPORTS which he urged others to repeat
on the current posting account of mine.


-- Dr. Bob. (aka Reef Fish)

.