Squidrific
<marquee><font color=red>Oh, and we hate sushi</ma
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2005
The point of my statement is that I have the right to book whatever I need at the 11 month window.
I wasn't nefarious with my intentions, when I booked the lockoff it was for my brother and his wife. They subsequently found out they were having a baby and are due a week after the trip, so they couldn't go. I've spent months trying to fill it with other family, no luck. How were you "affected by my decision"? What decision? To book a room at the 11 month mark for my brother? To the contrary, by being able to cancel the room I opened up those dates for a wait list and furthered your chances. If I wasn't allowed to cancel then you or somebody else wouldn't have gotten a room that would have sat empty.
So by the tone of your post I guess you're suggesting that I should not have booked the lockoff at the 11 month window because there's a small percentage chance that my guests would cancel? I booked the lockoff because I needed it, not because I was trying to tie up a bunch of rooms in order to foil the plans of other members.
Can you please explain what decision I made that affected your plans?
My "tone" was directed toward this particular statement made by you..."So the family that is losing out on the 1br/studio didn't have home booking rights at 11 months. In other words, while I aim to be considerate, I can't worry at the 11 month window about how my decisions might affect somebody 4 months later." I was proving a point that you are absolutely incorrect in your "assumption" that your actions only effect a non-owner when in fact it effects an owner. Just pointing out that your assumption was in fact wrong not that your actions were wrong.