TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
As would former head of Pixar John Lassiter.Pretty broad is probably how he would describe it too
As would former head of Pixar John Lassiter.Pretty broad is probably how he would describe it too
I agree, but mostly because the Masterclass should be covering reading comprehension. In the stone age, when I went to school we had reading comprehension just about every grammar school year I had the good fortune to attend. My first 8 years were in New York State and the state used to test all of us, twice a year, on comprehension, among other things, in what were known as Regents Exams. No matter what grades you got during your regular learning regiment, if you didn't pass the regents exam you didn't pass the grade. Hated them at the time, but it made me sure to pay attention in class which made the regents exam far easier.This thread is creepy
i think it’s a pretty low bar to suggest that someone lacks reading comprehension skills when they don’t agree with you.I agree, but mostly because the Masterclass should be covering reading comprehension. In the stone age, when I went to school we had reading comprehension just about every grammar school year I had the good fortune to attend. My first 8 years were in New York State and the state used to test all of us, twice a year, on comprehension, among other things, in what were known as Regents Exams. No matter what grades you got during your regular learning regiment, if you didn't pass the regents exam you didn't pass the grade. Hated them at the time, but it made me sure to pay attention in class which made the regents exam far easier.
I realize that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, I felt it was appropriate and since I have free speech it is my right to say whatever I want, whenever I want. That's how it works, correct?
Also most of these posts are entered on “smart” devices with tiny touchscreens where typos and autocorrect run amoki think it’s a pretty low bar to suggest that someone lacks reading comprehension skills when they don’t agree with you.
I comprehend what you are saying, I don’t agree with it, at all.
You are correct, that would be a low bar. It is also a low bar to constantly introduce things like implying that I don't think that things like the oath of office is appropriate or important when this whole discussion was about whether or not having a sitting President say anything at all or have any specific attention given to them. The discussion was not about what specifically is said, it is about whether or not it is detrimental to say anything at all because once they do, it becomes political and current instead of historical which is what the Hall of Presidents is all about.i think it’s a pretty low bar to suggest that someone lacks reading comprehension skills when they don’t agree with you.
I comprehend what you are saying, I don’t agree with it, at all.
I've seen the Hall of Presidents numerous times since it reopened both under former President Trump and current President Biden and I've never seen this disruption happening, like at all. You're acting like a few instances from early in the new show's run is the Gospel. It's clearly hyperbolic on purpose and really dilutes your opinion.We are saying if a president saying anything is going to get a few guests to be disruptive and ruin the experience for everyone else then it’s better to have them not speaking
Yup. You’re one of those “I’ve never seen it so it therefore doesn’t happen” . I never said it happens at every showing but it still happens. When it does it ruins the experience for guests who either have never taken in the show before or those who would like to see the show another time.I've seen the Hall of Presidents numerous times since it reopened both under former President Trump and current President Biden and I've never seen this disruption happening, like at all. You're acting like a few instances from early in the new show's run is the Gospel. It's clearly hyperbolic on purpose and really dilutes your opinion.
Guests could still disrupt the show during the role call…There is a very simple solution to be had that avoids any problems.
The standard idiots might, but just saying a name would be to brief (a matter of seconds) a time to do much. Giving a lengthy exposure will open it up for more disruption.Guests could still disrupt the show during the role call…
Sure anything can happen. But if you are aware that a disruption may happen because of a part of the show then why include it at all? We know this is causing an issue, then do whatever you can to avoid it ruining the experience.Guests could still disrupt the show during the role call…
How do we know that President Biden reciting the Presidential oath is causing an issue?We know this is causing an issue, then do whatever you can to avoid it ruining the experience.
We dont know if the oath is or is not. The fact is that the guests are reacting to Biden (or if elected, Trump) and thats the problem. Cutting out any speaking part takes that part of the equation out of play.How do we know that President Biden reciting the Presidential oath is causing an issue?
These statements contradict themselves “we don’t know” vs. “the fact is guests are reacting” - which is it?We dont know if the oath is or is not. The fact is that the guests are reacting to Biden (or if elected, Trump) and thats the problem.
I, for one, give up. They don't contradict each other at all, it just shows how easy it is to confuse people when statements are taken out of context.These statements contradict themselves “we don’t know” vs. “the fact is guests are reacting” - which is it?
Is there an issue or not?
This thread is creepy
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.