News Expose reveals WDC control in online fan community

[photomatt]

You should take your own advice too.

Is that the best you can do?

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Is that the best you can do?

I guess.

 

[flynnibus]

Is providing a timeline a threat? No.

It is an ultimatum -- and "or else" kind of thing.

It did not read well

 

[zweltar]

Just the other day I browsed these here forums and thought, ”Things sure have gotten less interesting since Spirits been gone.”

And then this! I should buy a lottery ticket!

 

[MissingDisney]

On a lighter note than threats, mind control, corporate backstabbing, etc. it’s been nice to have a topic that took me away from the worry of the 4,386,936 ways I could possibly die on the gondolas.

The drama has been a nice distraction and has read like dollar store paperback mystery.
Crazy stuff.

 

[DCLcruiser]

Did you guys see the @The Walrus rant?

Bombshell D23 Announcement + Craziness + Repercussions

null

forums.wdwmagic.com

 

[MissingDisney]

Of course! The movie is now going to be a mini-series.

 

[Jimmy Thick]

This whole fiasco would make a great movie, like that one that was filmed inside the parks people on this very forum called genius film making.

It would require a budget of $20, a full box of Preparation H, several tubes of unscented hand lotion and 3 Big Gulps filled with Fanta Orange.

Fred Olen Ray is dying to direct!!!!!!

 

[disneyflush]

Is that the best you can do?

You are coming off so terribly at this point. If you can't understand your own logic of:

You signed up to my website with this name and this email, Why are you denying thats you now? If you don't come clean in x hours you will regret it. Last chance. Last chancy chance. Nevermind, delete this thread. OOPS! Blame me. Nothing I said was true.

You act like you presented facts, easily researched (I assume you found this information yourself), easy to understand, given to the masses for general consumption at the height of a frenzy, but still held some ability to full stop the curiosity by calling it nonsense and mean-spirited. This wasn't your thread or your subject to take the helm and leadership of even if you are connected. Everybody being super coy about what happened behind the scenes to quelch this situation and thinking its going to just fade away now is being silly.

You wanted to throw punches with the big boys in a big thread then suddenly shout STOP IT YOU GUYS right when your fight got started. Apologizing so quickly without an explanation looks, ahem, peculiar.

 

[RobbinsDad]

This whole fiasco would make a great movie, like that one that was filmed inside the parks people on this very forum called genius film making.

It would require a budget of $20, a full box of Preparation H, several tubes of unscented hand lotion and 3 Big Gulps filled with Fanta Orange.

Fred Olen Ray is dying to direct!!!!!!

I want to see the entire story recapped by this guy.

 

[EPCOT View]

I've been on this board since before some people were probably born, and used to frequent the AOL Disney message boards.

This is my shocked face

I remember lurking on this website before it was wdwmagic.com
Aah, remember the good old days of the Fantasia Boi / Inverno monorail thread

 

[TP2000]

Counter that with @TP2000 who jumped on immediately.

Actually, I didn't log on here until mid afternoon Pacific time to see my inbox had blown up and I had 150 of those little bell things.

TP2000 didn't jump on immediately he was lurking for hours intermittently and only appeared when people goaded him to, and then he came up with a story denying it all and then another user outed him as a being a fraud and WDC employee and his recent messages are telling people to essentially 'move on and forget about it all'.

I was at brunch, and then went shopping with family. I had the eggs benedict, per my Sunday usual. You may not believe this, but I don't sit at brunch with family staring at my phone because that's very impolite, and I don't check this website upon waking and then spending an afternoon with family. When we got back to the house and I logged on here in the mid afternoon, Pacific time, I had a dozen private messages and 150+ bell things all mentioning me. I think I replied once or twice that afternoon at first, and then just sat staring at my screen like the rest of us for an hour or two, reading that Medium article, trying to catch up. Laughing a lot.

I'm not going to apologize for that timing on Sunday, and I'm not about to start checking this website hourly and/or staring at my phone at restaurants with other people at the table.

But if you're the type who swipes at his phone while his wife or kids sit silently at the dinner table, probably also staring at their phones, then you keep doing you. At least when you say Grace at your dinner table, I hope you thank the good Lord for unlimited data.

 

[photomatt]

We're arguing semantics here, but your post read as a threat primarily because you presented an ultimatum and a timeline for him to take action. While you didn't suggest the consequences there was a clear implication that whatever you wanted him to clear up would be explained by you at that time.

I took a screenshot of the now deleted post but will refrain from reposting it here because the semantics behind whether or not it was a threat are less relevant now. The greater point here that you may be able to help figure out / provide insight into all of this. Clearly something changed in the hours between your post and your retraction. Can you shed any light on that? Did you learn something about a source used in the article that caused you to question the information?

Post the ultimatum, please.

The exact post is relevant.

Clearly something changed in the hours between your post and your retraction.

That's a fair question.

Consider the people in the article. If the article is true, no one is going to lose their job. Think about that statement. If the article is true, the only person in jeopardy is Chapek.

The problem is that the article is not true, but it still puts an innocent person in jeopardy because it reveals something that Disney did not know and should not know.

That's all I am going to say about that.

 

[Buzzd]

The member refused the opportunity I gave them, and then they asked me to post the information I had, which I did.

Get your facts straight. No part of that is extortion, and you really need to knock off your nonsense.

Can't you see that this is a bit ironic coming from someone who posted privileged information about someone on a forum they moderate, then completely retracting it moments later? I mean yeah, people make mistakes sometimes. But you telling others to get their facts straight is like an obese P.E. teacher telling us how to properly diet & exercise.

 

[photomatt]

It is an ultimatum -- and "or else" kind of thing.

It did not read well

That's a reasonable assessment, and I appreciate your opinion.

Lesson learned.

 

[HmmmmmMMMmm]

 

[RSoxNo1]

That's a fair question.

Consider the people in the article. If the article is true, no one is going to lose their job. Think about that statement. If the article is true, the only person in jeopardy is Chapek.

The problem is that the article is not true, but it still puts an innocent person in jeopardy because it reveals something that Disney did not know and should not know.

That's all I am going to say about that.

Just to be clear, which article are you referring to here? The Al Lutz article is the one that specifically calls out Chapek and it's veracity hasn't really been questioned, just that Al may not have written it.

I believe it's the Gary Snyder article that you're saying isn't true (which makes sense given your retraction). That article really doesn't have Chapek as the focal point, but when viewed with the Al Lutz article certainly suggests Chapek is a fall guy.

So an innocent person is put in jeopardy because the article reveals something that Disney did not and should not know, but how is the article doing that while also being "not true"? I'm not sure if you intended to be contradictory, but can you further clarify?

 

[tirian]

Whoa now. Sunday just got juicy!!

Some facts:
1. I was Al's co-founder on MiceAge - I had a front row seat, so I know whereof I speak below.
2. It is true that Al has Parkinson's
3. I haven't written for MiceChat in a long time. Last I looked, they were using the name "MiceAge Update" rather than Al's name directly; there was something of a retirement more or less for Al. Could he still be writing occasional articles? Yes, sure. Especially if someone helped him.
4. The very idea that Al didn't write for MiceAge during the SaveDisney years is laughable. That was definitely him. Sure, he had sources, and I suppose they could have included folks in the Iger/Mucha camp. But don't you remember him ridiculing the way Zenia's name was pronounced? Definitely his own voice in those years, so the central premise of the article is wrong.

Since Mr. Synder outed several real names, I suppose it does no harm to reveal he is, in fact, Spirit of 74. Several of you picked up on the tone before I could confirm it.

Knowing that Spirit is the author of that article should change several things for readers. He was frequently a critic of Al, and with Al now sidelined by disease, this feels like a hit piece designed to "win the argument" several years later, and take Al's reputation down a notch.

It was all Al during those SaveDisney years, and he was nowhere close to co-opted by corporate. As noted above, his sources could have included Iger, sure. He could have promoted Iger over others, sure. But nowhere close to what you see with Influencers these days taking handouts and writing "reviews." Al was never comped into anything.

We miss you and your academic-minded columns!

 

[photomatt]

I'm not sure if you intended to be contradictory, but can you further clarify?

If the Snyder article is true, no one is going to lose their job.

The problem is that the article is not true.

The fact that the article is not true puts an innocent person in jeopardy because it reveals information that should not be public.

ETA: Although Al and Dustysage are innocent, I am not referring to them.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

So an innocent person is put in jeopardy because the article reveals something that Disney did not and should not know, but how is the article doing that while also being "not true"? I'm not sure if you intended to be contradictory, but can you further clarify?

My interpretation:

Troy Porter was getting insider info about Disney without their knowledge, and now they know because of the article.