[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[at-l] Re: ALDHA Companion/Endorsements
- Subject: [at-l] Re: ALDHA Companion/Endorsements
- From: email@example.com (Jim and/or Ginny Owen)
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 15:30:06 +0000
just a woodelf wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 2002 01:56:30 +0000 "Jim and/or Ginny Owen" <> writes: (a
>lot of facts, including the following)
>>nor does it intentionally leave
>>anyone out unless they've proved to be a real problem for hikers.
>Which is an endorsement of sorts (whither intended or not) because the
>business hasn't been removed as a problem for hikers. You can write a
>hundred times that the businesses listed aren't receiving an endorsement
>from ALDHA. But the fact remains, removing the "bad" businesses gives the
>impression, the ones left are "OK".
Nope - just means they haven't be "bad" enough to get caught - kinda like my
kids used to be <G>
Fact is that I don't personally know of any businesses that have been
"removed" unless they've gone out of business. But then, I'm not the
Companion editor either so I wouldn't necessarily know. You'd have to talk
to the Companion Editor about that.
One thing I AM sure about though is that the Field Editors don't personally
and thoroughly "check out" every business that's listed. They may know
about the service at specific businesses where they've stayed or eaten, but
tell me - how do you "personally" check out every motel and restaurant in
Front Royal? Or every fraternity in Hanover? I don't think it's reasonable
to assume that a Companion listing is anything other than just that - a
I do know that those who look at the Companion as an "endorsement" ala AAA
are doomed to disappointment.
Internet access plans that fit your lifestyle -- join MSN.