How is that not pedantic and hypercritical? The layman knows exactly what the poster was trying to say, and you attacked them as making a huge assumption, when again they didn't, which your post didn't address at all, now it was attacking me for minutiae to what was trying to be conveyed.
I agree Disney created the issue. Though I think they simply vastly underestimated how popular the pre-arrival registration would be. That is exactly why they offered the pre-books as incentive to pre-register, and the pre-books weren't supposed to be available to people who booked onsite but eventually was allowed. When it first rolled out there were waits of upwards of 8-10-12 hours, sometimes on multiple days, just to get through for the pre-registration so possibly the prebooks were needed at least initially. Now just 2.5 years later Disney has so many people "trained" to pre-register that the concept of DAS registration on arrival is foreign to a large subset of guests.
I honestly don't know how I attacked you? I was just answering your question - there was no intent to attack, nor was there any intent to attack Fido either. I'm truly sorry that's how my comment made you feel.
Sorry, attack probably isn't the right word, but it often seems a correction of something that didn't need correcting, one has no bearing on the point being made.
I can see how it might feel like the bolded, but as I said that wasn't my intent. My apologies
It didn’t come across that way to me - the same poster is asking other members (myself included) to be more specific but wants you to be more vague. Can’t win sometimes! Haha
Almost as if two different discussions can require two different things?
What do you mean when you say IBS didn’t meet the requirements in the policy? What was the earlier definition that it didn’t meet? I’m asking because I honestly don’t know.
I'm really not interested in being the cause of or in the middle of personal back and forths here. I truly didn't mean it to come across as such, and it's fair for @Club Cooloholic to indicate it did. Please let it drop
It's all good. I love you all, this forum is a great outlet, especially in the crazy world we live in. This particular thread is interesting, because it keeps going but nobody really knows the impact right now of any changes. We all saw the system needed some tweaks, and we will all see how it works out in the long run.
Thank you
Did she get DAS in the end? I've only heard of a few cases of visually impaired people getting it.
I think she reported that she did because she complained a lot and “tried” some of their suggestions.
The visually-impaired woman? Yes, I believe she did get DAS after reconnecting with the Accessibility Team from within the park. It was at WDW soon after the changes were implemented.
I worry how it’s going to go when this person reapplies…. She didn’t meet the requirements before so will they deny her then and the process starts all over? Will be interesting to see.
There may be notes as to why the in-park accommodations suggested don’t work for her? Or she has that experience to explain again for her next call. I don’t recall specifics, but I think she was to to rent an ECV or something outrageous for the situation. DAS probably should have been granted initially but an overzealous or poorly trained CM made a mistake denying the request.
But vision issues don't qualify right? Maybe I’m thinking of another post.
Wasn’t that the Facebook post where she said she was told to rent an EVC and leave her 5-year-old alone in line?
Thr one I’m thinking of was her grandkid, not her kid and she said she needed it because she couldn’t leave her grandkid alone in line. Maybe it wasn’t the same one. Either way, it’s hard to believe some of the stuff that was written on the fb pages in the beginning.
