Galapagos-trip report, contaminated air

[ronscuba]

Having seen numerous threads turn into mudslinging contests I can understand the OP's apprehension.

He offerred to name the liveaboard operator via private message. I sent him a private message here on scubaboard, he responded within a day. That's good enough for me.

 

[johnspierce]

Robint,

Thanks for the link where I saw the OP was on a Peter Hughes boat which apparently had the bad air. I think we have a responsibility not only as divers but as consumers to note unsafe practices or materials.

thanks,
JP

 

[TravisD]

I think that not naming the operator before they have a chance to respond is probably OK. I think it's reasonable to name the operator after they've responded, or had a reasonable time to respond.

 

[Travelnsj]

I think that not naming the operator before they have a chance to respond is probably OK. I think it's reasonable to name the operator after they've responded, or had a reasonable time to respond.

Not if I have plans to go on that boat.....I want to know about it now....so I do not end up like this http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/ac...-baani-adventurer-incident-22-may-2008-a.html

 

[ScubaSteve]

I wanted to do a trip report for the liveaboard we did, but one incident spoiled the whole week. Here is a copy of the letter I sent. Tell me what you think about it. I took the name of the company out becuase I'm not interested in starting any battles...........

I think that not naming the operator before they have a chance to respond is probably OK. I think it's reasonable to name the operator after they've responded, or had a reasonable time to respond.

I do agree however, this is how it works typically on SB: The poster names the company and almost immediately either a SB member or staff member notify the operator with a link to the thread stating that their business is being "discussed". Then they have the choice to come on here and respond or not. If they are never named, how are they to know that they have been "flamed". I believe your statement is in fact not correct. AND, by the way, the original thread is October 31, 2008. Your post was on December 25th.....I think that constitutes almost 2 months of time where they could have responded had they been named.

 

[deeper thoughts]

I have also seen where the poster names the op and everybody starts defending the op and attacking the poster. The pm solution he offered is excellent

 

[deepstops]

I found it especially interesting and suspect over the fact that he had to create a new and fresh account to type the name. Makes me wonder if it was not all BS and he expected to get booted for it. Just my interpretation.

"Ed Jackson" is actually Ed's wife Mary Ann.
"Ed Jackson1" is actually Ed Jackson.

I've never met Ed and don't agree with all of his opinions (especially when it comes to the Keys) but he seems like a straight shooter and I certainly respect that.