A Spirited Perfect Ten

[SirLink]

He has built a very good reputation for having accurate information. Now all of a sudden information that's posted is not supposed to be believed?

Yes ... he is not under any obligation to report information to the police, his source(s) has/have to report the information to the police.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Yes ... he is not under any obligation to report information to the police, his source(s) has/have to report the information to the police.

Legal obligation or moral obligation?

 

[Lee]

The point is that this isn't just some rumor about a ride being built or not. This is much more serious.

Since information posted by certain member(s) on this forum is usually accurate, it's unreasonable to suggest that in certain circumstances should we not believe information from the exact same member(s).

This is really not a conversation for this thread, so I'll say this and let it go.

Some things are said which are aimed at a particular audience. Not accusations, but more of an inside joke that certain individuals who read these threads will get, and enjoy.

Like I said, don't read too much into comments tossed onto a message board.

Moving on to better discussions...

 

[spacemt354]

Yes ... he is not under any obligation to report information to the police, his source(s) has/have to report the information to the police.

I think to echo @BrianLo 's response a couple of posts ago, I have no problem with talking about or reading interesting tidbits of information that don't get a lot of press. I find that stuff fascinating.

What I don't condone however is having serious information and using it on a Disney website to drum up negative accusations. There's just something uncomfortable about that ordeal to me. I usually just stop reading but the notion that information may have been untrue or not reported is pushing the negative press train off the rails to me.

You can claim that the people on the other side of the fence shouldn't have believed the information. But that simply goes against everything the source stands for.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

This is really not a conversation for this thread, so I'll say this and let it go.

Some things are said which are aimed at a particular audience. Not accusations, but more of an inside joke that certain individuals who read these threads will get, and enjoy.

Like I said, don't read too much into comments tossed onto a message board.

Moving on to better discussions...

That's an impossible distinction to make in a thread that features plenty of accusations and insinuations that the reader absolutely IS supposed to take seriously. Your advice to "not read too much into message board comments" creates a bit of a boy-who-cried-wolf situation. We're not supposed to take these allegations seriously, but we ARE supposed to take allegations that Bob Iger had his wife censor an article to hide nefarious dealings in China seriously, or that he may have misappropriated $800M. And we're definitely supposed to take the notion that TWDC may have hacked Spirit's computer seriously... until we're not. It's a credibility issue because it allows anyone to spew bull to see what sticks and then weasel out of it with "don't believe what you read on message boards" if you get called out.

 

[monothingie]

This is really not a conversation for this thread, so I'll say this and let it go.

Some things are said which are aimed at a particular audience. Not accusations, but more of an inside joke that certain individuals who read these threads will get, and enjoy.

Like I said, don't read too much into comments tossed onto a message board.

Moving on to better discussions...

You have to be more specific, by my last count this thread alone had 56,374 "insiders". All blessing us with their insiderness.

#outsider

 

[jakeman]

As much as I hate to get involved in such matters...

Something else to factor in when judging for ourselves...I knew about what he was doing by deleting those posts. Before you came in and brought it up.

I figured someone would, didn't reckon it would be you.


Like a dog with a bone with that aren't you. Still.

I know...me and my moral high horse about wanting child molestation reported to authorities.

I've asked @WDW1974 directly about it at least twice in this thread and at least once in another and while he seems to be quite willing to quote me on most other matters those always seem to be neglected for some reason.

There are either actions by WDI employees that need to be looked into or '74 is making things up. Those are the two options. Which one is it?

 

[Lee]

Clearly I suffer from being too well informed on all aspects of these discussions.
I know what is accurate information, what isn't, and what is an inside "shout-out".

Rest assured, nobody here is covering up any dastardly crimes.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Rest assured, nobody here is covering up any dastardly crimes.

Except for Bob Iger, amirite?

 

[Lee]

I know...me and my moral high horse about wanting child molestation reported to authorities.

I've asked @WDW1974 directly about it at least twice in this thread and at least once in another and while he seems to be quite willing to quote me on most other matters those always seem to be neglected for some reason.

There are either actions by WDI employees that need to be looked into or '74 is making things up. Those are the two options. Which one is it?

I'd say, and have said, veer towards your second option.

Edit: I don't want to add new posts on this subject, but I also don't like how my reply makes it look like 74 is making things up. I don't think that, but those two options don't allow for an option C, which would include rumor, hearsay, innuendo and just plain unconfirmed stories.

 

[Lee]

Except for Bob Iger, amirite?

Touché.
Again...I know too much.

 

[stevehousse]

So do we know anything more about Innoventions being shuttered???

 

[SirLink]

Legal obligation or moral obligation?

No obligation to tell users on a forum.

 

[jakeman]

Clearly I suffer from being too well informed on all aspects of these discussions.
I know what is accurate information, what isn't, and what is an inside "shout-out".

Rest assured, nobody here is covering up any dastardly crimes.

I'd say, and have said, veer towards your second option.

So @WDW1974 is alluding to actions that did not exisit to make a point?

Like these that took 5 seconds to pull up by just search "underage" and "WDW1974"

Seriously, if Disney was worried about underage teens being too close to seedy elements that use illegal drugs they'd keep them away from Imagineers (yes some folks at WDI do not know where to draw a line). Of course, you don't like hearing facts. I understand. Most people would rather live in delusion these days and I do believe that's your favorite Land!

THAT was my point because Disney has a known problem (at least in the business) of Imagineers stepping over the line with underage boys ...

Have you ever heard about the 'casting couch' in Hollywood? Women being asked to for sexual favors to get into the business? Have you heard how it sometimes involves underage girls? ... Now, in an industry like this one, what would ever make you think the same thing doesn't happen to boys/young men regularly? And what would ever make one think that Disney, of all companies, would be immune to this type of behavior.

These action that are very clearly stated are all false? @WDW1974 fabricated these and they have not occurred?

 

[Lee]

So @WDW1974 is alluding to actions that did not exisit to make a point?

Like these that took 5 seconds to pull up by just search "underage" and "WDW1974"







These action that are very clearly stated are all false? @WDW1974 fabricated these and they have not occurred?

I can't/won't speak for him on this any further.
Possibly he has info that I don't.

I've said what I know to be true.

 

[jakeman]

I can't/won't speak for him on this any further.
Possibly he has info that I don't.

I've said what I know to be true.

Just so we are clear, I do believe you when you say that you've said what you know to be true.

 

[fillerup]

This is really not a conversation for this thread, so I'll say this and let it go.

Some things are said which are aimed at a particular audience. Not accusations, but more of an inside joke that certain individuals who read these threads will get, and enjoy.

Like I said, don't read too much into comments tossed onto a message board.

Moving on to better discussions...

An inside joke? Really? Well, you and your pal 74 have a sense of humor that's beyond my comprehension.

From July 2012 - a discussion of PI:

Seriously, if Disney was worried about underage teens being too close to seedy elements that use illegal drugs they'd keep them away from Imagineers (yes some folks at WDI do not know where to draw a line). Of course, you don't like hearing facts. I understand. Most people would rather live in delusion these days and I do believe that's your favorite Land!

Underage teens, illegal drugs, Imagineers. Facts.

April of 2014:

THAT was my point because Disney has a known problem (at least in the business) of Imagineers stepping over the line with underage boys ... and you'd think the Jerry Sandusky/Penn State scandal would have had them waking up a bit that when 15-year-olds are hanging out with 50-somethings and getting access to construction sites and trailers that they just might want to pay attention to what their employees are doing.

A known problem. 15 year olds in trailers. Some inside joke.

July of 2012

Have you ever heard about the 'casting couch' in Hollywood? Women being asked to for sexual favors to get into the business? Have you heard how it sometimes involves underage girls? ... Now, in an industry like this one, what would ever make you think the same thing doesn't happen to boys/young men regularly? And what would ever make one think that Disney, of all companies, would be immune to this type of behavior.

Compare those quotes and others to this one from the recent HuffPost discussion:

Anyone can state an opinion that TWDC (or any other company) doesn't like. If there is something factually incorrect, then they have every right to complain and ask for a correction on that point. Funny how they didn't do that. What they don't have is the right to libel or to smear an author because his opinion could harm their business interests.

TWDC has no right to libel and smear (no evidence of that either. Yet '74 can smear and libel with impunity hundreds of people. Smear and libel with no evidence whatsoever.

 

[wdisney9000]

This is true, but this is all about perception and projecting ownership. Take a look at Bob here getting stroked by Jim Cramer on CNBC the week of the shareholders meeting and compare it to his body language when a young lady from CCTV asks him some softball questions about SDL.
http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000360793

Ill give Bob the benefit of doubt. Perhaps his uncomfortable appearance is more because he is speaking slowly so the Chinese audience can better understand him and he is reading a prepared statement from a cue card. Safe to assume anything on CCTV is pre-approved. His rigid posture may be due to him focusing on speaking clearly and reading the statement. Either that or there is a soldier pointing an assault rifle at his head off camera. (kidding) Probly more like a soldier off camera ready to tear up his stock option agreement if he says the wrong thing.

 

[spacemt354]

Clearly I suffer from being too well informed on all aspects of these discussions.
I know what is accurate information, what isn't, and what is an inside "shout-out".

Rest assured, nobody here is covering up any dastardly crimes.

Basically what you're saying is the information was made-up and meant to be an "inside-joke."

Clearly I suffer from having a very different sense of humor.

 

[Lee]

Basically what you're saying is the information was made-up and meant to be an "inside-joke."

Clearly I suffer from having a very different sense of humor.

I'm saying, from my knowledge, that there are numerous cliches and exaggerations that are frequently tossed about in a joking manner by members of certain groups. I know of one group in particular. One who's members frequently lurk here.

I have no first hand knowledge (rumors being rumors) of any actual wrongdoing. That would certainly not be funny.