13 Year Old Falls from Majesty

[Cwolf]

Where did you even get the idea someone changed the cruiseline. I did ask if it could have been RCI and the Majesty of the Sea when the balcony incident came up, knowing NCL Majesty didn't have balconies. That is not changing the crusieline. I don't think anyone else changed the line either.

 

Its called spin. Sometimes, even the hint of something from someone will cause some people to state something as truth. So in this case, you merely asked a question, the spin kicks in and it was no longer a question. Its so rampant in politics in this country, I guess we should expect to see it sometimes in our culture as a whole.

[Cuizer2]

I agree. I wouldn't call this new information firsthand either or declare it to be "the facts". It's probably better than the pure speculation that's been going on here, but I wouldn't label it the gospel truth. BSkenes was told by the crew that the girl fell from the 8th to the 2nd floor. That's a contradiction of the reports that it was a five-flight fall. What are we to believe?

 

The original report said she fell off a non-existent balcony. I'll take second hand information that sounds reasonable over someone who got it obviously wrong the first time.

[johnql]

The original report said she fell off a non-existent balcony. I'll take second hand information that sounds reasonable over someone who got it obviously wrong the first time.

The first report was obviously wrong about the balcony, but that doesn't mean the five-flight fall was wrong. Other than the balcony detail, what else was unreasonable about the first report(s)?

 

I'm not saying BSkenes's info is wrong or unreasonable. I'd just rather wait and hear from an actual eyewitness. If that's not forthcoming, then a statement from someone official (officer of the ship, doctor, etc.) might have to suffice.

[Cuizer2]

The first report was obviously wrong about the balcony, but that doesn't mean the five-flight fall was wrong. Other than the balcony detail, what else was unreasonable about the first report(s)?

 

I'm not saying BSkenes's info is wrong or unreasonable. I'd just rather wait and hear from an actual eyewitness. If that's not forthcoming, then a statement from someone official (officer of the ship, doctor, etc.) might have to suffice.

 

I guess what I am trying to say, thought apparently not very well the first time, is it really is not important for me to know far she fell (her injuries are what they are - and I hope she makes a full recovery). If it is 40 feet, 50 feet or 60 feet is not important to me. What I want to know is how did it happen, so that I can watch out and hopefully prevent something similar in the future.

 

So what is important to me is what happened, not how long it happened.

 

As to the news story, where do you think they got their information? It was not first hand information either (obviously). At this point I have no reason to believe that she did not fall between the railing on a stairwell. How far is not the issue. Given that the most recent information is a reasonable explanation of what happened, and the news story has already gotten it wrong once, I'll believe the most recent information over the news story for now. Again, the distance of the fall is not important. It may be the cause of her injuries, but no matter how far she fell, her injuries are what they are. And again, I hope she makes a full recovery.

 

To put it another way, I am not going to relax just because some can fall "only" 30 feet, and then feel more concerned that someone could fall 70 feet. Either fall could seriously injury or kill someone. So I would want to prevent either fall. The only way to do that is to understand how something happened. How long it happened is important as far as the degree of the injury, but not to taking preventative measures.

[newmexicoNita]

Its called spin. Sometimes, even the hint of something from someone will cause some people to state something as truth. So in this case, you merely asked a question, the spin kicks in and it was no longer a question. Its so rampant in politics in this country, I guess we should expect to see it sometimes in our culture as a whole.

Perfect word "spin" yes, it is everywhere even on the "no spin zone" LOL though we do seem to have some new reports (what was said yesterday) we still have nothing concrete, may not ever have and life goes on....NMNita

[Cuizer2]

Where did you even get the idea someone changed the cruiseline. I did ask if it could have been RCI and the Majesty of the Sea when the balcony incident came up, knowing NCL Majesty didn't have balconies. That is not changing the crusieline. I don't think anyone else changed the line either. BTW, even the solid information we have received is still reported from a crew member or members to a passenger. Even that isn't solid though we all beleive it. Nmnita

 

You have assumed that I was referring to you, which may or may not be true. I would also point out that this is not the only thread I have read on this subject.

 

I did not identify the person or persons I was referring to for a reason, and that reason still holds. So I will not confirm or deny that it was you, or even that the reference was to only one post.

 

If you think I was referring to you, that is your own choice.

[newmexicoNita]

You have assumed that I was referring to you, which may or may not be true. I would also point out that this is not the only thread I have read on this subject.

 

I did not identify the person or persons I was referring to for a reason, and that reason still holds. So I will not confirm or deny that it was you, or even that the reference was to only one post.

 

If you think I was referring to you, that is your own choice.

I thought you were because I think I am the only one that has mentioned the "other" Majesty on this thread plus you made reference to this in one of your earlier thread. I was just trying to clarify something, not start a war out of the subject. No offence taken btw. NMnita

[Cuizer2]

I thought you were because I think I am the only one that has mentioned the "other" Majesty on this thread plus you made reference to this in one of your earlier thread. I was just trying to clarify something, not start a war out of the subject. No offence taken btw. NMnita

 

I have made that mistake too. I thought someone was referring to me in a post and they were not.

[BeachBumMama]

Hmmmm...:confused: Mild head trauma and taken to the hospital as a precaution. That doesn't sound like a split from forehead to the base of the neck. Not that I put much into the post that stated that, and not to say they are lying, but we all know rumors evolve from knowing so little. Which we still do.:(

 

Regardless, I hope she's fine. She's probably home now and back to school. I think we would have heard a whole lot more by now if it was really serious, but 'mild head trauma' and 'taken to hospital as a precaution' and not a necessity, indicates maybe it isn't that serious at all. Let's hope not.

[newmexicoNita]

Hmmmm...:confused: Mild head trauma and taken to the hospital as a precaution. That doesn't sound like a split from forehead to the base of the neck. Not that I put much into the post that stated that, and not to say they are lying, but we all know rumors evolve from knowing so little. Which we still do.:(

 

Regardless, I hope she's fine. She's probably home now and back to school. I think we would have heard a whole lot more by now if it was really serious, but 'mild head trauma' and 'taken to hospital as a precaution' and not a necessity, indicates maybe it isn't that serious at all. Let's hope not.

 

the way this story is going, maybe she fell down 5 stairs instead of 5 flights? LOL

[Cwolf]

You have assumed that I was referring to you, which may or may not be true. I would also point out that this is not the only thread I have read on this subject.

 

I did not identify the person or persons I was referring to for a reason, and that reason still holds. So I will not confirm or deny that it was you, or even that the reference was to only one post.

 

spin and more spin, lol

First rule in the spin zone is to make the truth seem elusive, which explains above...

[BeachBumMama]

the way this story is going, maybe she fell down 5 stairs instead of 5 flights? LOL

I'm beginning to think you're right.:)

[Cuizer2]

spin and more spin, lol

First rule in the spin zone is to make the truth seem elusive, which explains above...

 

What is your point. Just what is it that you think I am trying to spin??? Instead of talking in code, why don't you just come out and say it?

[Cuizer2]

the way this story is going, maybe she fell down 5 stairs instead of 5 flights? LOL

 

You might be right.

[Cwolf]

I just thought it was funny when I read this from you;

 

You have assumed that I was referring to you, which may or may not be true.

 

or this:

 

So I will not confirm or deny that it was you....

 

 

Its just funny. Why not deny it was her if indeed it was not, particularly after she accused you of spinning what she wrote? If it wasnt her you were referring to, why not just say so? Why the intrigue? So instead of talking in code, to use your expression, why dont you just come out and say it?

 

And I cant believe I got caught up in this, okay, Ill stop..

[Cuizer2]

I just thought it was funny when I read this from you;

 

 

 

 

Its just funny. Why not deny it was her if indeed it was not, particularly after she accused you of spinning what she wrote? If it wasnt her you were referring to, why not just say so? Why the intrigue? So instead of talking in code, to use your expression, why dont you just come out and say it?

 

And I cant believe I got caught up in this, okay, Ill stop..

 

Because if I deny it was her, and someone else says it was me, and I deny that, and someone else says it was me, and I cannot deny that, then I will in fact have answered the question.

 

Ever wonder what the Navy always says, "I can neither confirm or deny that."? Same reason. Deny when you can, and then when you cannot, suddenly you have answered the question. I did not name the person or persons I was referring to, nor do I intend to be tricked into doing so. If you have a problem with that, then that is your problem. I did not refer to anyone in my post and I am under no obligation to do so now.

[BeachBumMama]

Because if I deny it was her, and someone else says it was me, and I deny that, and someone else says it was me, and I cannot deny that, then I will in fact have answered the question.

:eek: LOL - what was the question again?:D

[MrLee]

Because if I deny it was her, and someone else says it was me, and I deny that, and someone else says it was me, and I cannot deny that, then I will in fact have answered the question.

 

 

 

Let me guess...you're a Lawyer? :p

[johnql]

I guess what I am trying to say, thought apparently not very well the first time, is it really is not important for me to know far she fell (her injuries are what they are - and I hope she makes a full recovery). If it is 40 feet, 50 feet or 60 feet is not important to me. What I want to know is how did it happen, so that I can watch out and hopefully prevent something similar in the future.

 

So what is important to me is what happened, not how long it happened.

 

As to the news story, where do you think they got their information? It was not first hand information either (obviously). At this point I have no reason to believe that she did not fall between the railing on a stairwell. How far is not the issue. Given that the most recent information is a reasonable explanation of what happened, and the news story has already gotten it wrong once, I'll believe the most recent information over the news story for now. Again, the distance of the fall is not important. It may be the cause of her injuries, but no matter how far she fell, her injuries are what they are. And again, I hope she makes a full recovery.

 

To put it another way, I am not going to relax just because some can fall "only" 30 feet, and then feel more concerned that someone could fall 70 feet. Either fall could seriously injury or kill someone. So I would want to prevent either fall. The only way to do that is to understand how something happened. How long it happened is important as far as the degree of the injury, but not to taking preventative measures.

I agree that the distance is not important, but it's always important to get the details of an incident right. When details are wrong, a report loses credibility, which is clearly why you have chosen to not believe the original report. But let's remember one thing: the original report was issued with a mistake (falling from a balcony), then was quickly corrected. So, to me, that means that the NCL spokeswoman was making a concerted effort to release a factual report to the best of her knowledge.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with what BSkenes posted. But we're all familiar with the old telephone tag game where a statement gets distorted by the time it passes through several people. All I'm saying is that this is a possibility with secondhand information.

 

And yes, the NCL spokeswoman is also relaying secondhand information, but she has a responsibility to get it right, to check her facts, which she obviously did when the report was so quickly corrected. And I believe she has more access to "inside" information than a passenger since she's able to get briefed by the ship's staff. I also realize that part of her job entails p.r., so I don't necessarily take her word as the gospel truth either.

[Cuizer2]

Let me guess...you're a Lawyer? :p

 

No, but I do deal with civil law - and lawyers (so my job is not perfect). But it does have its advantages.

[Cuizer2]

I agree that the distance is not important, but it's always important to get the details of an incident right. When details are wrong, a report loses credibility, which is clearly why you have chosen to not believe the original report. But let's remember one thing: the original report was issued with a mistake (falling from a balcony), then was quickly corrected. So, to me, that means that the NCL spokeswoman was making a concerted effort to release a factual report to the best of her knowledge.

 

Again, I don't have a problem with what BSkenes posted. But we're all familiar with the old telephone tag game where a statement gets distorted by the time it passes through several people. All I'm saying is that this is a possibility with secondhand information.

 

And yes, the NCL spokeswoman is also relaying secondhand information, but she has a responsibility to get it right, to check her facts, which she obviously did when the report was so quickly corrected. And I believe she has more access to "inside" information than a passenger since she's able to get briefed by the ship's staff. I also realize that part of her job entails p.r., so I don't necessarily take her word as the gospel truth either.

 

While I agree with what you are saying, the corrected original report does not say how the girl fell, which is what I am really interested in. The two appear to disagree by about 10 feet on how far she fell (which as I noted, is not the issue I am interested in). However, both, plus the new information I posted earlier (see the prior link) appear to confirm the details that she feel between the railing of the stairs. I don't think one can do that while just walking down the stairs (just like I don't think one can fall overboard just by looking over the railing).

 

So, if I see any of the kids I am going to be cruising with doing something similar, and there is room to fall between the railing (or over the railing in some cases) then I'll put a stop to it, AND be able to explain why I put a stop to it.

[johnql]

While I agree with what you are saying, the corrected original report does not say how the girl fell, which is what I am really interested in. The two appear to disagree by about 10 feet on how far she fell (which as I noted, is not the issue I am interested in). However, both, plus the new information I posted earlier (see the prior link) appear to confirm the details that she feel between the railing of the stairs. I don't think one can do that while just walking down the stairs (just like I don't think one can fall overboard just by looking over the railing).

 

So, if I see any of the kids I am going to be cruising with doing something similar, and there is room to fall between the railing (or over the railing in some cases) then I'll put a stop to it, AND be able to explain why I put a stop to it.

Understood.

[2martini]

I was on Majesty a few weeks ago, and noticed that you could look down between the handrails almost from top to bottom. You could drop a small object such as a tennis ball straight down. but the configuration of the stairs varies from floor to floor somewhat. So I am GUESSING that she may have fallen a few stories but I would GUESS that if she was "bouncing: she might end up back on the stairs. But who knows; physics in accidents are strange. I must say I was a bit startled to see the open shaft, even though small, as there were a lot of people stumbling around on my trip.

[mochuck]

Has anyone heard how this came out? Is the girl alright or was she seriously injured?