While he may have spoken for the district in the past, in this instance, it was clear that he was speaking for the union, and not the district. Is that really so difficult for you to understand?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Happily ever the biggest nighttime firework display?
- Thread starter THEMEPARKPIONEER
- Start date
You'll be happy to know that you are wrong, then. Good show.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
It's possible that he was speaking for both. It's speculation to make an assumption (otherwise known as opinion) either way.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
If that's case, and I'm wrong I must request that you immediately stop badgering me. Move along now.
The article that you linked to was this:
Disney’s fireworks causing brush fires in Orlando, fire union says
Note the word UNION, not district. This was your link.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Just as soon as you admit you were wrong, and apologize to @peter11435. 
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Just as soon as you admit you were wrong, and apologize to @peter11435.
I'm not wrong, and you're going on ignore. Have fun playing with yourself.
Finally, thank goodness.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Well actually you are wrong.
Yes Tim is employed by the district. Yes he has spoken on behalf of the district in the past. But in this instance he is not representing the district. The article makes it very clear who he is speaking for. If he was speaking on belalf of the the district you can be damn sure the article would have notated that. It is not an opinion that there is a difference.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
He may still be, it's not an absolute that he isn't. The article absolutely makes an implication, but Reedy Creek hasn't issued a statement saying he was wrong either which is why it's (in my opinion) speculation to assume he's not speaking for the district.
peter11435
Well-Known Member
He is still employed by the district and could absolutely make a statement tomorrow on their behalf. But his statement in the article the statement in question was not made as a representative of the district. It was made as resprentive of the union. Regardless of what you choose to believe there is a difference. Just because someone works for someone and has spoken for them in the past does not mean everything they say is the position of their employer. The article was very clearly referencing the union and the firefighters themselves and given there current disagreement with both the district and Disney is hardly representative of the districts opinion on the matter.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
You may be right. Disney holds a majority stake in Reedy Creek so I'd think they would get a statement out as fast as possible to counter if it wasn't representative or accurate.
The_Bellringer
Active Member
Yes I think it's great! Mooooore pyro please!!
peter11435
Well-Known Member
Possibly, but I think it's more likely that Disney and the district would ignore it and let it disappear into the news cycle.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
That's possible.
tractor tipper
Well-Known Member
Went back and reread the Sentinel article you sited. In the article " Reedy administrators referred questions to Disney for comment" didn't say who by name.
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
Yeah, that's an interesting component.
For the first time in over 10 - 15 years a show in Disney World has replaced a show with a much higher budget and a big upscale from its predecessor and we still have a reason to be negative?
RustySpork
Oscar Mayer Memer
No, we should be celebrating Disney's added pyro during a near state wide burn ban. Negative Nancys wanting to not have fires, those people and their negativity are bringing everything down!