Cruising the Rajang
Sep 1st, 2009, 06:53 PM
#82
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have no question that Paul is making money hand over fist. My issue isn't that he's a poor businessman (though it could be said it wasn't good business to kick a regular customer off a cruise), my issue is that I don't want to give my money to a businessman who behaves that way. I have no illusions that my refusal to take a Pandaw cruise will be felt by anyone but me.
Sep 5th, 2009, 02:28 AM
#83
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow! What a read! What can I add? Well as there has been a lot of comment on how much one can trust anonymous posts I have to say as one who was there ( and no I am not the lady who nearly fell out of a boat on day one) that Tangata's description of the maiden voyage up the Ragang is entirely truthful. Yes he did get horribly burnt on the first excursion. Yes he and his charming wife did decide not to go on the visit to the longhouse from Kapit and sadly in my opinion miss the highlight of the whole trip. They both looked flustered and hot when they decided to return to the boat rather than jump in the largely non air conditioned minibuses for the ride to the long house. Could I blame them for being a bit huffy at this point? No not really. The day had been filled with uncertainty and doubting that the trip to the long house would be worth the effort was very understandable. As to Paul Strachan's claim that Tangata was a trouble stirrer during the trip. Well he didn't seem to complain any more than others. There were many passengers grumbling about this and that but maybe as a first timer I was not party to Old Pandaw hands' rumblings. All in all I thought Tangata's diary of his trip fell neatly into the mood developed by dogster - an amusing personal account of the highs and lows of a maiden voyage with some perfectly reasonable criticisms but also continuing the Pandaw mystique of " we're all in it for the ride" which I commented on earlier. Surely the fact that he was preparing to go on the Ganges was proof enough that the hiccups on the Rajang maiden voyage were in his view just that - rectifiable hiccups? As to the idea that one could post horrible untruths in this thread - well Tangata makes little attempt to hide his identity referring to his wife by her real name. What a sad saga! But for Paul's extreme response Tangata's diary would probably have encouraged rather than discouraged others from going on the Pandaw cruise up the Ragang, if not for a while, as I hope mine did. I think fondly of the delightful crew and am sure they are all still doing their utmost to give us well heeled folk a memorable experience. All we ask from the likes of Paul is less spin, more honesty when things go wrong and good planning so that we can feel fairly certain that, barring natural disasters, our money is well spent. Then the odd hiccup along the way will be taken in good spirit by all.
Sep 5th, 2009, 04:45 AM
#85
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As noted above, I sent an inquiry to Pandaw concerning this voyage. The response was that paul Strachan was unavailable until next week. I will follow up and inquire again. We have Tangata's report, substantiated by Somersault's reply (With that screen name, I was hoping somersault was the person that almost somersaulted out of the boat. Alas, I was disappointed one more time). I hope that Pandaw provides their side of the story. Certainly, any silence on their part would speak volumes. We'll see.
Sep 5th, 2009, 11:43 AM
#87
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great to see somersault back in here. I'm looking forward to tangata's return. Will we ever see tawtha again? Ahhh... thank God for this post. It adds meaning to my otherwise pathetic life.
But awwww, NY: I confess to being a wee bit disappointed in your post. Not because I don't rejoice in your ethics and stand on this issue - but just because I know you'd really like Pandaw and, I guess, I just want you to have the best time.
But, in the interests of balance, I guess you've seen this:
http://www.orient-express.com/web/rt...h=10&year=2009
But awwww, NY: I confess to being a wee bit disappointed in your post. Not because I don't rejoice in your ethics and stand on this issue - but just because I know you'd really like Pandaw and, I guess, I just want you to have the best time.
But, in the interests of balance, I guess you've seen this:
http://www.orient-express.com/web/rt...h=10&year=2009
Sep 8th, 2009, 04:43 PM
#94
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Paul Strachan e-mailed me directly. Kudos to that. Here's his reply, posted here by permission:
"Dear Leslie,
Thank you for the message.
I think travel forums like Fodor's are can be very undemocratic - they present one person's point of view or opinion but not the others. A person with malicious intent can cause a good deal of damage without allowing the 'accused' a defence.
Pandaw do not operate a black list. But, like all transport operators do reserve the right to refuse to carry a person if we consider that person will endanger the safety and security of our crew or other passengers and/or might in any way spoil the cruise for other passengers by disruptive or anti-social behaviour.
In the case of Tangata, who recently travelled with us on the Rajang, we considered his behaviour anti social and unpleasant in the extreme and for this reason have declined to carry him.
The fact that he may have criticised us on the Fodor's forum has no bearing on this decision.
I would say that in 15 years of Pandaw's existence this is the first time we have refused to carry a person (and I truly hope the last). Most of our passengers are educated, cultured and very congenial people. This is the first time we have had to deal with a character whose objectives on board were clearly to disrupt the cruise and unsettle the other passengers.
We stand by our decision as it was made not just out of self interest (to spare our crew) but in the interest of the other passengers whom we want to enjoy the Ganges Maiden Voyage as much as possible.
I hope this explains our position and if you like you can post this email on Fodors as I am very happy to come clean with our version of events.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Strachan
Pandaw Cruises
Mobile +44 759 590 3997
www.pandaw.com
"Dear Leslie,
Thank you for the message.
I think travel forums like Fodor's are can be very undemocratic - they present one person's point of view or opinion but not the others. A person with malicious intent can cause a good deal of damage without allowing the 'accused' a defence.
Pandaw do not operate a black list. But, like all transport operators do reserve the right to refuse to carry a person if we consider that person will endanger the safety and security of our crew or other passengers and/or might in any way spoil the cruise for other passengers by disruptive or anti-social behaviour.
In the case of Tangata, who recently travelled with us on the Rajang, we considered his behaviour anti social and unpleasant in the extreme and for this reason have declined to carry him.
The fact that he may have criticised us on the Fodor's forum has no bearing on this decision.
I would say that in 15 years of Pandaw's existence this is the first time we have refused to carry a person (and I truly hope the last). Most of our passengers are educated, cultured and very congenial people. This is the first time we have had to deal with a character whose objectives on board were clearly to disrupt the cruise and unsettle the other passengers.
We stand by our decision as it was made not just out of self interest (to spare our crew) but in the interest of the other passengers whom we want to enjoy the Ganges Maiden Voyage as much as possible.
I hope this explains our position and if you like you can post this email on Fodors as I am very happy to come clean with our version of events.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Strachan
Pandaw Cruises
Mobile +44 759 590 3997
www.pandaw.com
Sep 8th, 2009, 05:44 PM
#95
Well, it's certainly good that Paul Strachan answered, and gave permission for the letter to be posted. But I can't see that it clears anything up.
He makes some nasty charges against Tangata, but without specifics. And to describe Tangata as: "a character whose objectives on board were clearly to disrupt the cruise and unsettle the other passengers" - hardly accords with Tangata's or with Somersault's posts, or with the fact that he had cruised with Pandaw several times before.
He makes some nasty charges against Tangata, but without specifics. And to describe Tangata as: "a character whose objectives on board were clearly to disrupt the cruise and unsettle the other passengers" - hardly accords with Tangata's or with Somersault's posts, or with the fact that he had cruised with Pandaw several times before.
Sep 8th, 2009, 06:28 PM
#96
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree Thursday. Couple of problems though:
First, none of us was there. So who's to say Tangata didn't act the lout? Somersault is a mystery. He/she appears to be a new poster when you click on that handle. (But Dogster seems to know this person.) Maybe this new poster is Tangata himself! Again, the troublesome opaqueness of anonymity.
Second, it doesn't make sense that Pandaw is refusing business from a regular passenger unless there's some problem. I'm ever so slightly inclined believe a middling critique like Tangata's isn't enough to get a person black-listed. Again, makes no sense.
Anyway, the mystery deepens...
Bottom line for me: It might be a shame if people boycotted this company on the basis of scanty information and assumptions, especially since we have testimonials from other happy Pandaw passengers.
First, none of us was there. So who's to say Tangata didn't act the lout? Somersault is a mystery. He/she appears to be a new poster when you click on that handle. (But Dogster seems to know this person.) Maybe this new poster is Tangata himself! Again, the troublesome opaqueness of anonymity.
Second, it doesn't make sense that Pandaw is refusing business from a regular passenger unless there's some problem. I'm ever so slightly inclined believe a middling critique like Tangata's isn't enough to get a person black-listed. Again, makes no sense.
Anyway, the mystery deepens...
Bottom line for me: It might be a shame if people boycotted this company on the basis of scanty information and assumptions, especially since we have testimonials from other happy Pandaw passengers.
Sep 8th, 2009, 06:48 PM
#97
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 33,288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad that Paul responded to you, Leslie. I agree that there are still a number of problems here. The problem for me is that none of it holds together...
It's hard to believe that Paul is so thin-skinned that Tangata's review would cause him to ban Tangata.
Tangata is a long-time poster and has posted a number of times about his Pandaw cruises and has given them good reviews. It doesn't make sense that Tangata would have "an axe to grind" with Pandaw.
While there is no guarantee that Tangata didn't act in an annoying and perhaps disruptive way on the cruise, we don't really have any evidence that he did other than Paul's vague assertion that his behavior was "anti social and unpleasant in the extreme." Who knows? Perhaps a slightly negative review is Paul's idea of "anti social and unpleasant in the extreme."
We appear to have testimony from another passenger, somersault, which gives no indication of untoward behavior on Tangata's part.
We have the posts of Tawtha, who may or may not be Paul. Paul can obviously access and read Fodors and could have made a response to the board rather than or in addition to Leslie. If he was not Tawtha, I would expect him to post and say so.
Paul makes no reference to the fact that Tangata is a repeat customer.
I am guessing that there must be a lot of glue we are missing here to be able to understand how all of this fits together.
It's hard to believe that Paul is so thin-skinned that Tangata's review would cause him to ban Tangata.
Tangata is a long-time poster and has posted a number of times about his Pandaw cruises and has given them good reviews. It doesn't make sense that Tangata would have "an axe to grind" with Pandaw.
While there is no guarantee that Tangata didn't act in an annoying and perhaps disruptive way on the cruise, we don't really have any evidence that he did other than Paul's vague assertion that his behavior was "anti social and unpleasant in the extreme." Who knows? Perhaps a slightly negative review is Paul's idea of "anti social and unpleasant in the extreme."
We appear to have testimony from another passenger, somersault, which gives no indication of untoward behavior on Tangata's part.
We have the posts of Tawtha, who may or may not be Paul. Paul can obviously access and read Fodors and could have made a response to the board rather than or in addition to Leslie. If he was not Tawtha, I would expect him to post and say so.
Paul makes no reference to the fact that Tangata is a repeat customer.
I am guessing that there must be a lot of glue we are missing here to be able to understand how all of this fits together.
Sep 9th, 2009, 01:05 AM
#98
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 6,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's good that Paul replied to you Leslie. Certainly, if Tangata did represent a safety danger, that would be sufficient reason to ban him. However, I've read many, many posts of his on Fodors. They all seemed well-reasoned and thoughtful. They are not consistent with anti-social behaviour. His posts complied with all accepted notions of decorum. None of them were worded to disrupt the smooth flow of information on this forum. On the other hand, the posts of Tawtha were personal and a little troublesome. Paul's letter to Leslie was thoughtful and appropriate.
The mystery remains. Either Tangata accurately reported his experience and Paul over-reacted to the posts or Tangata was troublesome on the cruise and Paul acted in the interest of smooth operations of his business. I have my opinion, but it is based on conjecture rather than hard facts. As noted above, further information from another passenger would certainly help.
The mystery remains. Either Tangata accurately reported his experience and Paul over-reacted to the posts or Tangata was troublesome on the cruise and Paul acted in the interest of smooth operations of his business. I have my opinion, but it is based on conjecture rather than hard facts. As noted above, further information from another passenger would certainly help.
Sep 9th, 2009, 04:30 AM
#99
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, bravo LA. I'm so impressed with you and the way you've approached this. I think you've had it in balance all along.
But no, I don't know somersault - I know Mitch from a previous Pandaw cruise - and a fine fellow he is.
What has been instructive and heart-warming here is the support given out to a regular poster in Fodor's. Also instructive has been the willingness of all involved to have an emotional reaction AND a logical one simultaneously. Then to follow up with an almost forensic legal approach to the details.
'...I have my opinion, but it is based on conjecture rather than hard facts...' I love this. Why did it take me 60 years to work this out? All I ever had was opinions running free.
Kathie's words:'It's hard to believe that Paul is so thin-skinned that Tangata's review would cause him to ban Tangata... '
gpanda's words: 'Either Tangata accurately reported his experience and Paul over-reacted to the posts...'
Paul's words: 'The fact that he may have criticised us on the Fodor's forum has no bearing on this decision...' I think, have to be taken on face value.
He adds '...I would say that in 15 years of Pandaw's existence this is the first time we have refused to carry a person (and I truly hope the last)...'
To my knowledge that's accurate so it does imply that whatever the behavior, the mystery, the unspoken circumstances, the 'Edinburgh Festival theory' and Paul's undisputed oddity, something serious enough went down [in his eyes, anyway] to make it more trouble to take tangata's money than it was gonna be worth.
That's a powerful statement, powerfully backed up with the willing abandonment of US$8,000. So, I think he means it.
Forcably separating a Scotsman from his sporran is an act of war. For a Scotsman to fling his sporran in your face, to say 'I don't want your money, just piss off and die,' is either an act of delicious, unexpected anarchy or a smarter move than we credit.
If this post was a chess game, I wonder who would be holding the advantage about now?
But no, I don't know somersault - I know Mitch from a previous Pandaw cruise - and a fine fellow he is.
What has been instructive and heart-warming here is the support given out to a regular poster in Fodor's. Also instructive has been the willingness of all involved to have an emotional reaction AND a logical one simultaneously. Then to follow up with an almost forensic legal approach to the details.
'...I have my opinion, but it is based on conjecture rather than hard facts...' I love this. Why did it take me 60 years to work this out? All I ever had was opinions running free.
Kathie's words:'It's hard to believe that Paul is so thin-skinned that Tangata's review would cause him to ban Tangata... '
gpanda's words: 'Either Tangata accurately reported his experience and Paul over-reacted to the posts...'
Paul's words: 'The fact that he may have criticised us on the Fodor's forum has no bearing on this decision...' I think, have to be taken on face value.
He adds '...I would say that in 15 years of Pandaw's existence this is the first time we have refused to carry a person (and I truly hope the last)...'
To my knowledge that's accurate so it does imply that whatever the behavior, the mystery, the unspoken circumstances, the 'Edinburgh Festival theory' and Paul's undisputed oddity, something serious enough went down [in his eyes, anyway] to make it more trouble to take tangata's money than it was gonna be worth.
That's a powerful statement, powerfully backed up with the willing abandonment of US$8,000. So, I think he means it.
Forcably separating a Scotsman from his sporran is an act of war. For a Scotsman to fling his sporran in your face, to say 'I don't want your money, just piss off and die,' is either an act of delicious, unexpected anarchy or a smarter move than we credit.
If this post was a chess game, I wonder who would be holding the advantage about now?
Sep 9th, 2009, 04:37 AM
#100
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 4,501
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tangata writes: "We join our Travel Agent in the elite list of people banned from Pandaw; he had the temerity to advertise other cruises as well as Pandaw – though he gave them top billing.", while Paul writes: "I would say that in 15 years of Pandaw's existence this is the first time we have refused to carry a person (and I truly hope the last)."
Strange.
Strange.
