WDW1974
Well-Known Member
I'm usually a defender of Jim Hill, but I'm becoming very intrigued by his recent formula for writing:
1. Break news about a controversial, destructive project that is unpopular and negatively received;
2. Condescendingly criticize us for not knowing the full details behind said project or not thinking about the project from the right point of view;
3. Continue to give us details that prove the project to be even more controversial and destructive.
That pretty much sums up Hill these days. He is quite obnoxious in a seemingly 'I'm just trying to tell you rubes how things are in a fair and balanced manner' ...
It's strange how he now seems to defend all of Disney's decisions, even when casually passing off facts like "don't worry, they're go to pave over the Rose Garden." Speaking of which...
This was one of the most distressing things I found in the article. Tearing up the remainder of the Hub's landscaping for more fireworks viewing? It's like the Hub's tree removal all over again...
That just makes me sick ... it's like Al Weiss (yes, now gone), Erin Wallace, Meg Crofton and Phil Holmes had a bad experience in a horticulture class at Valencia CC and are now taking revenge on anything that provides shade or natural beauty at the MK.
Just look at pics from even a decade ago or 15 years ago versus today ... the MK has become so hot, concrete and plastic feeling and that has a lot to do with slaughtering trees for all sorts of bad reasons (yes, chopping down trees for fireworks shows in the SKY is a very bad reason!)
~Only $3.79 a gallon? GO ONE PERCENT!!!~