Unconfigured Ad Widget

mshatty · 08-31-2006, 06:47 PM

Shopgirl/Cindy,

You know you are going to get banned now, don't you?

JLB · 08-31-2006, 10:45 PM

I believe she believes it.

Originally posted by tennisWalt

"A 10 I tell ya.....a super sized 10!!!!!!!"
__________________
Vickie

Vickie statements about OL are just not believable.

:

lawgs · 08-31-2006, 10:56 PM

Vikiality

tennis walt....

looks like Vikiality factor being applied.....

....claim something to be true and enough people agree with you, it becomes true

oh give me a home. ( over yonder ).....where never is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day

( with my apologies to Home Home on the Range )

smilawgs

lawgs slinks off into over yonder oblivion......

JLB · 08-31-2006, 10:57 PM

FWIW, I believe I have been suspended five times.

Twice for sparring with Miss Vickie/and her co-conspirator(s).

Once for questioning why negative Stroman threads got pruned.

Once for asking one too many times why the results of searches had to be posted on Sightings when they used to be allowed anywhere.

(Speaking of which, the Distressed Exchanges/Sightings forum was added at my Carol C's suggestions. Me for DE and she for Sightings. The reason they are combined is that we made the suggestions at the same time and the mucky mucks decided that they would be on a members-only board. The idea of DE being on a members'-only board was be based on the trust and faith we could place in other members, it being a group where we were all trying to help each other out. That concept did not last very long.)

And once during the general brouhaha of ought-4, as a member of the RAT Pack. RAT stood for Respect, Acceptance and Tolerance, which is what our group was asking for. Most of the group gave up asking and went on down the road. The brouhaha ended with the Rogers Edict, containing two simple rules. Rule One: No one questions the staff. Rule Two: See Rule One.

JLB · 08-31-2006, 11:08 PM

That was the title of the thread in January, 2004, reporting the results of a week at OL, which started the ill-will that has persisted until now, pretty much without a respite.

Of course, there have been several more damning threads since, similarly reporting the results of different folk's weeks there, or stuff like River Island and GlobalAccess.

Like I said earlier, they just seem to keep coming.

I'm looking forward to our next visit, since I've watched the place grow up and mature.

Of course, I can't help but see it in a different light than I did up until January, 2004.

Originally posted by lawgs

Where Never is Heard a Discouraging Word

JLB · 08-31-2006, 11:43 PM

Wow! I took a look at this, since I haven't been there as much lately.

I'm shocked that (edit-Apersonb of influence) took the strong pro-OL position that he did. That's very unlike him as he normally tends to stay out of the fray. He obviously is voicing his support, and with it the support of the site, with Miss Vickie and OL. It is also obvious that he is trying to counter for what he feels has been too much negative talk about OL. It's as if he feels OL has been wrongly offended and he is trying to make amends.

Very reminiscent of the old Stroman discussions. Of course, Stroman had a banner ad, and I don't see OL supporting the site in any way.

He has recently told me that if I make one more post about OL I will be banned permanently, and then he jumps into the argument on the other side.

Combine that with (edit-another person of influence's) recent comment about not liking Branson (which although it may be true, it's a tad undiplomatic--a backhand slap--considering the circumstances), and I find it hard to understand why anyone would not understand why people like myself get a bit upset.

In the old days Over Yonder I sometimes suggested that those who do the refereeing should restrain themselves when it comes to the debates. They obviously carry more clout that mere pions, even Super Pions, plus they can pull the cord when things don't go their way. Should it be the job of moderators and administrators to enter into and sway discussions when they feel one way or the other?

Perhaps those who are only casually involved do not see, or want to see, what is really going on.

Originally posted by shopgirl

So I did the numbers (and was almost challenged to do it by Dave M and Vickie).

shopgirl · 09-01-2006, 01:05 AM

Dave M pointedly asked why I continue...........

I take that as a warning and will not continue on either live OL thread. I really do not want banned. I still feel that he challenged me to do the numbers. Read the entire thread and you will see I was definitely challenged.

John Chase, thanks for your clarity on the entire OLCC issue. I think OLCC has great amenities and not-so-great unit interiors.

Definitely not a 10, by anyone's standards and it's ludicrous to continue an argument with someone who cannot find fault, simply because of ownership.

Steve · 09-01-2006, 01:38 AM

Does the paranoia ever end?

Jim,

Honestly, do you think the world completely revolves around you? I have commented a few times that I didn't like Branson for one reason: because I genuinely didn't like it. Lots of people ask about Branson who haven't been there...and I have answered as someone who recently went there for the first time. It has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Good grief...get a life!

Steve

Cat · 09-01-2006, 02:00 AM

Originally posted by JLB

Dave has recently told me that if I make one more post about OL I will be banned permanently...

Dave never said any such thing. All mods/admins have a copy of the email he sent, and we all know as well as you do that Dave never said this.

It's unfair and unwise to distort the truth.

shopgirl · 09-01-2006, 02:28 AM

Originally posted by Steve

Jim,

Honestly, do you think the world completely revolves around you? I have commented a few times that I didn't like Branson for one reason: because I genuinely didn't like it. Lots of people ask about Branson who haven't been there...and I have answered as someone who recently went there for the first time. It has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Good grief...get a life!

Steve

I genuinely do not like OLCC, but I am not posting rude things on TUG, where you moderate, Steve. I am not posting to Vickie, "Good grief...get a life!" What is the difference? There is none. Life is easier when we are polite and nice to others.

Defending a resort or defending one's home, it matters not. It is personal. It hits (shall I say it?) a little too close to home.

I have no idea when or where you were negative about Branson. That does not matter, really. What matters is the last comment in your retort on this thread, which is offensive.

As for Vickie, since you are the moderator on that forum, I will say that I admire her tenacity and her love of her resort. If all of us loved our resorts so much to defend them against every "discouraging word," we would all have 5 star/GC resorts.

The problem with OLCC threads: Vickie does go a little overboard and will not accept that her resort has any faults, which isn't positive energy for all of the rest of us who do not agree. There are many, many people who have posted their not-so-great experiences and have been told they are wrong. It creates hard feelings. Until she is reined in, we are going to continue with the same old arguments and the same old defenses. I will not post negatively on your OLCC threads anymore, unless I feel someone is questioning the numbers I posted, which are totally accurate and checked TWICE.

Maybe you need to take your own advice, Steve, the advice you have on the TUG forum sticky for Florida's forum. Be nice.

BocaBum99 · 09-01-2006, 07:35 AM

It's interesting how each of us interprets people's intentions for their posts differently based on their belief system about those other people.

When I read Dave M's post regarding OLCC, I actually thought that he was trying to help out someone who was very concerned about their recent exchange into Orange Lake. He apparantly had determined that OLCC had probably been too negatively portrayed in recent months on TUG relative to the reality of what unbiased people would on average experience. So, he gave the person another way to determine if the resort were a good choice for them. And, he described what he thought was the objective truth from his viewpoint.

So, I don't think Dave M was taking a Pro Orange Lake stance because he is Pro Orange Lake. I think he was trying to provide a little bit of balance to the recent discussions and debates which were skewing the discussions more negatively than warranted. I think he did the right thing.

When I first saw that person post, I felt badly for her because there is a good chance that they would have a very good experience. But, because of all the back and forth, she got really concerned. Probably overly concerned. I decided proactively not to post my positive experience because I didn't think it would help. I thought it would just result in more focus on the negatives of Orange Lake.

Now, that poor woman will be worried about her vacation until the day she gets there. And, she will likely be hyper sensitive to looking for the things that people have described trying to avoid them at all costs. She would have been better off not coming to TUG, just accepting what would happen and take the experience in that she would have without the input. So, in essence TUG will be value subtractive to that woman's experience.

Keitht · 09-01-2006, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by JLB

I sometimes suggested that those who do the refereeing should restrain themselves when it comes to the debates. They obviously carry more clout that mere pions, even Super Pions, plus they can pull the cord when things don't go their way. Should it be the job of moderators and administrators to enter into and sway discussions when they feel one way or the other?

JLB,

We agree on some things and disagree on plenty of others, but I think you have a totally valid question here.

Personal view is that people should try to avoid moderating / administering forums in which they have a personal direct involvement. I certainly think that admins/mods should not take sides on the forums they manage. If they have solid factual information to provide they should post it, but keep personal opinions and feelings out of it.
It's not always easy to do, but who said that the admin/mod job was easy ? That's why I stick to looking after the European reviews on TUG and moderating boards here for exchange companies I have never used.

JLB · 09-01-2006, 10:12 AM

My apology

I have removed referrals to specific staff members. The reason I mentioned them in the first place is because that had already been done in this thread. I used them because what I said was the truth.

I posted what I posted because I was so shocked at the level of involvement of the staff member who had just told me never to post about the topic again.

(In place of my long rebuttal):

Since I have again been accused of wrongdoing by the same source, I will leave it up to those who matter. As many know I have saved emails that may be very embarassing, and have never posted them on the Internet. Now one of those sources has falsely accused me.

In more than 15000 posts on timeshare forums I have never knowingly posted anything but the truth. I realize that the truth can be uncomfortable for some people.

I can post the entire texts of instructions I have received concerning my participation on another website. Is it not communications between a company and a customer, and something that other customers should have the right to know about? Is it privileged?

Is this not very similar to that person ordering me to print the entire text of an email I received from another of their customer?

I will leave that up to those who matter here.

I can let it lie, take one more public hit, and leave it be.

If I don't get back right away it is because we are entertaining two couples from that other site, with another couple from that other site arriving tomorrow, and I have some work to do on the boat. Really, that is what these forums should be all about, not having to scold and ridicule each other. I'd be more than happy to stop when it stops.

JMHO again, but this is why I turned down a moderator position here, because there are too many counterproductive allegiances here which are stifling to free and open discussions.

NativeCracker · 09-01-2006, 10:41 AM

It's my honest opinion that some of the overzealous Orange Lake fans so unrealistically hype that resort that those of us who are not so blind to its imperfections feel like we have to even out the dialogue. I've found myself in that position a few times and have been attacked by SWSRN more than once simply because I don't consider OLCC to be the utopia that she does. Overall, I have enjoyed my stays at Orange Lake, but there are significant issues there that a prospective visitor would be blindsided by if they were to go only by what the LOL's have to say about the resort.

It feels to me like those who try to diplomatically interject a reality check into OLCC threads are first assaulted, sometimes on a personal level, by SWSRN, and then risk being subjected to disciplinary threats or actions by the Over Yonder powers-that-be if they defend themselves. As long as the dialogue remains respectful, why not allow all viewpoints to be shared? Has SWSRN ever been suspended or threatened with suspension? If not, she certainly should have been. She's stepped over the line a whole bunch of times. IMHO, there is sadly a double standard in play here.

In any event, I try to avoid the fray these days, and I've noticed several other veteran posters are doing the same. I do see, however, that some "new blood" is now stepping in to voice their countering viewpoints. Viva la "next generation."

This will remain a neverending cycle as long as SWSRN (and sometimes her cronies) insist on assaulting anyone and everyone who does not think Orange Lake is the best thing since peanut butter.

BocaBum99 · 09-01-2006, 11:11 AM

I agree that SWSRN goes overboard. The ironic thing is that OLCC would be viewed more positively if she simply stopped posting about it. That's because for each and every post she makes as a positive, she will receive 2 or 3 negative ones in response.

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Announcement

Same Old Same Old OL

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment