A Spirited Perfect Ten

spacemt354

Chili's
Instead of trying to play university big shot, try reading and following along. You're asking for forty years worth of citations. Is he supposed to scan all of the paper sources and maintain a website directing people to these resources? There is not just one link because he pulled it from the first thing Google spit out.
I think you're taking it to the extreme. You don't need 40 years of citations to simply lead the reader to a location, as PO4 did.
 

ParentsOf4

Well-Known Member
Your totally comparing apple to oranges here. We are not talking about a large faceless corporation here that would have a lot to gain by feeding me deceptive data, we are talking about an individual on a Disney fan site who posts statistics because it's something he likes to do.
Not academic standards. This guy takes his time creating a graph...and really can't spend an extra couple of minutes incorporating that in his post? Really...? Sources are what make stuff believable. I see it on every post here where people aren't making rumours unless they have a source claiming their rumour.
I've got to do something to keep from worrying too much while my four teenagers are out gallivanting. ;)

(I never thought I'd become one of those dads. :rolleyes:)

Question though. When my oldest turns 20, can I still refer to her as a 'teenager', at least until she's flown the coop? :D
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
He added the source afterwards. I'm not asking specifically for links. I stated this in another post where he can say a summary of a source, such as "Source:[insert source here (e.g. The Washington Post)]". Not 40 years of it. The summary gives me enough information on finding the source rather than a wild goose chase.
I think you're taking it to the extreme. You don't need 40 years of citations to simply lead the reader to a location, as PO4 did.
Disney only maintains the last few years' Annual Reports online. Nor does the SEC have records from all years posted in their online archives. So yes, it would be decades of scanned and saved documents.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
Professional or not, if he wants believability, address the sources that were used. Statistics isn't my job either, but if I claim something, I'm going to provide proof for people to believe me. Any random person can make a graph look believable...I've stated this millions of times. Just because it looks nice, doesn't mean it's accurate. Hence, why you include sources.
I've got to do something to keep from worrying too much while my four teenagers are out gallivanting. ;)

(I never thought I'd become one of those dads. :rolleyes:)

Question though. When my oldest turns 20, can I still refer to her as a 'teenager', at least until she's flown the coop? :D

How do you expect us to believe that the ages you are posting are true without sources? And come to think of it, how do we know you really have 4 kids, maybe you are really a parent of 3 trying to convince up otherwise with a false user name. I demand graphs of your children's ages with proper supporting documentation.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
How do you expect us to believe that the ages you are posting are true without sources? And come to think of it, how do we know you really have 4 kids, maybe you are really a parent of 3 trying to convince up otherwise with a false user name. I demand graphics of your children's ages with proper supporting documentation.
I'm officially in the daughter of @ParentsOf4 birther camp. I want to see a birth certificate! Make that for all four of them. For all we know he's only got three and can't count.
 

dhall

Well-Known Member
I've got to do something to keep from worrying too much while my four teenagers are out gallivanting. ;)

(I never thought I'd become one of those dads. :rolleyes:)

Question though. When my oldest turns 20, can I still refer to her as a 'teenager', at least until she's flown the coop? :D

It's a hard habit to break. It gets worse as the number of teenagers declines.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
TQM is still around. The WDW variation used in the 90's allowed for going the extra mile and putting the customers first.

The TQM programs of today do not allow for going the extra mile or putting the customer first. In current TQM, if you need to go the extra mile, someone failed somewhere in the supply chain. TQM is focused on providing the same product/service every time. This requires that every customer is seen as a homogeneous entity only requiring a homogeneous product/service.

This results in efficiency savings and puts the customer second.

So the opposite of what it meant in the mid nineties? I'm glad I got out of the game.
 

lebeau

Well-Known Member
You know what gang. Let's just savor this moment. Because those of us who are still posting here in five years are going to look back on this conversation and laugh.

"Hey, do you remember the time someone asked Po4 to source his graphs so they would look more 'professional'?" And then we will laugh and laugh and laugh...

Good times.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom