Spirited News and Observations and Opinions ...

[Californian Elitist]

I will be back at DLR. Likely summer. If not, then definitely September before the Emmys.

Hopefully before I leave for school.

 

[M.rudolf]

And if I tell you that my agenda is for WDW to be run in the best interests of its guests, fans, cast and shareholders, you don't like that. Because you're looking for something deeper ... even if it isn't there. Sorry, but Daisy Duck didn't molest me when I was a kid, I'm not upset that I'm not a social media who lives in the parks and I REALLY never wanted to be an Imagineer.

I could ask you what agenda if any you have ...




I'm not here to debate my writing voice with you or anyone else. Trolls go where there's meat ... they are like zombies. Some of them even post under multiple names/IPs. The fact they are here and not in other threads is a testament to the fact my message is getting out. They're here to drown it out ... but you know that.



It's called a joke. Since Eddie sits in his ivory tower thread and doesn't rub elbows with the rest of us. I'm not here to encourage page hits. If I were, then I'd be asking Steve for some $$$. I'm here because I enjoy the site, enjoy many of the posters and like talking about Disney, theme parks and the entertainment business.



Really? You sure about that? I sense some ego here and I sense someone trying to derail the thread just in a sorta passive aggressive manner since full-on trolling has proven to be an abject failure.

Maybe you have an ego? Not sure where you'd get it from though. You don't exactly have a long history here ... sorta came out of nowhere and all and started parroting what others were saying.



Why are the questions for me? Shouldn't the questions be for Disney? And, no, I won't respond to a troll. And I don't have time to respond to every post directed at me, but I try to.

It just seems like you've become a tad bit out of sorts and want to turn this into a discussion on me versus substance. I find that strange ... for a fellow 'insider' and all.

I like how now I'm a parrot, I'll end this by saying one thing you have absolutely no right to bully others. I've been here over two years 74, I've not once called you a name and of coarse if anyone questions you, you resort to name calling. Yeah my ego is so huge that after this I will walk away. Just remember I never called you soft, I never questioned your intent I simply asked your agenda and if your agenda wouldn't be better served if the rhetoric was turned down. Like I said if this is so important in your life that you result to name calling and discredit then who really has the issue. Was I a parrot when you were calling posters houses attempting to figure out my identity, was I a parrot when you called me and had a 3 hour long conversation. Again I walk away because I have no ego and what happens on a disney message board has no real impact on the world outside of the web. I asked some questions you sent some pm's questioning my intentions and called me names on more than one occasion in the pm. You also accused me of defending trolls, that wasn't the purpose. Again it's been fun but I really don't have the time,energy or ego to continue this

 

[M.rudolf]

I like how now I'm a parrot, I'll end this by saying one thing you have absolutely no right to bully others. I've been here over two years 74, I've not once called you a name and of coarse if anyone questions you, you resort to name calling. Yeah my ego is so huge that after this I will walk away. Just remember I never called you soft, I never questioned your intent I simply asked your agenda and if your agenda wouldn't be better served if the rhetoric was turned down. Like I said if this is so important in your life that you result to name calling and discredit then who really has the issue. Was I a parrot when you were calling posters houses attempting to figure out my identity, was I a parrot when you called me and had a 3 hour long conversation. Again I walk away because I have no ego and what happens on a disney message board has no real impact on the world outside of the web. I asked some questions you sent some pm's questioning my intentions and called me names on more than one occasion in the pm. You also accused me of defending trolls, that wasn't the purpose. Again it's been fun but I really don't have the time,energy or ego to continue this

And to respond to your last quote the minute you resorted to name calling it was no longer private. I can post the whole thing if you like

 

[WDW1974]

So it was wrong for the congressman to question MyMagic+? got it! Lets just let corporations go about there buisness unquestioned and everything will be alright!

Many folks would like that. ... Ther are blind and truly believe corps are people. many also believe the world is flat too.

I would congratulate you on being Post #4000, but I sense by tomorrow there are going to be far fewer pages.

 

[Taylor]

I like how now I'm a parrot, I'll end this by saying one thing you have absolutely no right to bully others. I've been here over two years 74, I've not once called you a name and of coarse if anyone questions you, you resort to name calling. Yeah my ego is so huge that after this I will walk away. Just remember I never called you soft, I never questioned your intent I simply asked your agenda and if your agenda wouldn't be better served if the rhetoric was turned down. Like I said if this is so important in your life that you result to name calling and discredit then who really has the issue. Was I a parrot when you were calling posters houses attempting to figure out my identity, was I a parrot when you called me and had a 3 hour long conversation. Again I walk away because I have no ego and what happens on a disney message board has no real impact on the world outside of the web. I asked some questions you sent some pm's questioning my intentions and called me names on more than one occasion in the pm. You also accused me of defending trolls, that wasn't the purpose. Again it's been fun but I really don't have the time,energy or ego to continue this

It's been fun Rudy!

 

[WDW1974]

I know a lot of tobacco, bank, and auto companies that would agree with that statement 100%. Government oversight is "bad".

I've never been a Big Government person. I'm surprised it took Disney to make me reconsider my position.

Me neither ... funny how that worked!

 

[Californian Elitist]

This thread has taken a wrong turn. @WDW1974 Maybe it's time for a new one. Too many annoying people in this one.

 

[WDW1974]

Yep, The sad thing about the decline at Disney is that it is simply a symptom of a larger cultural decline in general which is sad because what used to be considered an escape from everyday problems has become a reflection of them.

THIS!!!

Many times over. You couldn't Walmart WDW, if you hadn't of Walmarted much of American society first.

 

[WDW1974]

This thread has taken a wrong turn. @WDW1974 Maybe it's time for a new one. Too many annoying people in this one.

No. There are folks with issues. I'm logging off. They can go on until someone turns a light on in the WDWMAGIC.com world HQ!

 

[HenryMystic]

Something about the term "Private Message" suggests that the contents and gist are intended to remain private. I think Congressman Markey would agree...but I digress...

 

[Californian Elitist]

No. There are folks with issues. I'm logging off. They can go on until someone turns a light on in the WDWMAGIC.com world HQ!

It's making my head spin. What's with the threats to post private messages?

 

[Longhairbear]

As huge Disney fans, with a DVC membership, and recently expired Premier passes, we are just stunned by Iger's response. That is not at all what we would have expected from Disney. And I say Disney as opposed to just one executive.
Disney should have expressed concern about a politician wanting more information, and invited him to see for himself what Disney wants to implement into it's theme parks. But no, Disney did not respond in typical Disney fashion. Disney's response to a justifiable question from an elected official is unsettling, and suspect in our opinion. Imagine all the Disney princesses doing the practiced princess wave in the parades, except they are all waving with just one finger.

 

[Cody5242]

Ricky Brigante is completely supporting Iger....

 

[Longhairbear]

Ricky Brigante is completely supporting Iger....

I just sent a comment of concern without bias to either side on my DVC membership site. I stated that Disney's response was undignified, and common. I also stated that anyone that did not adhere to the principles of common decency, and respect of the office of an elected official was not someone that should be part of the Disney company.

 

[WDWFigment]

I had an acquaintance with a legal background read the above article, as well as some of the WDWMagic posts that followed -- the same person whose opinion I solicited when the Brooks Barnes article first came out. Here's what I got (with a few minor edits from me):


It's clear from the way [Iger's] letter was written that it was penned by lawyers. I suspect some senior in-house counsel (though not the guys at the very apex of Disney legal, as those types rarely trouble themselves with actual wordsmithing) worked some very long hours over the weekend to craft the message, and that Iger and the non lawyers vetted it for general substance. Considering how many sets of eyes had to have reviewed the content, however, the fact that the letter still contains grammatical errors speaks rather poorly about the quality of Disney's legal team, and incidentally of [Iger] himself - if something critically important to my company is going out under my name, you can be sure I wouldn't rely primarily on others to catch and fix the nits that might make me look bad.

The tone of the letter - 'We are offended by the ludicrous and utterly ill-informed assertion' - reads precisely like that of a typical brief in opposition to a motion (e.g. to dismiss or for summary judgment). The belligerence doesn't necessarily indicate that the speaker feels he is responding from a position of weakness - it reveals merely that he isn't particularly sophisticated where written advocacy is concerned. The overtly aggressive tone is an effort to seize control of the narrative by casting the other party's stance as deeply flawed - indeed, irrational - in the eyes of the person who will be making the relevant findings and rulings (i.e. the judge). It's very common to see this kind of tone in legal filings, and the fact that Disney's lawyers took such an approach is not surprising ... after years of drafting hostile response briefs, it becomes very difficult to take any other tack. But ultimately, good attorneys resist the temptation to respond in such a fashion, especially if they are confident that the law is on their side. A couple of germane block quotes from binding precedent can instantly deflate an opponent's argument better than any amount of angry bluster can, and truly talented writers know that a more subdued approach is often far more effective when it's exactly on point.

Then again, if you know you're dealing with a judge who's not very astute, then sometimes it's better to go with a more bluntly aggressive approach anyway. In this regard, it's possible that Disney legal consciously chose to employ a hostile tone in responding to Markey, believing that the true audience of the letter - the general public - would more likely be compelled by righteous indignation than by a more restrained approach.

This is pretty much exactly what I thought when reading the letter. It reads very much like an appellate brief or a response to a motion for summary judgment.

It reminds me of an adage: If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the law is on your side, pound the law. If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table.

 

[Goofyernmost]

I would have answered the questions asked without coming off as disrespectful and defensive... if you have nothing to hide, then answer... if you get called out and are hiding something, you respond like a little whiny , just like Iger did...

All of us have an "I woulda" reaction to this. Considering what reputation that Disney is at least marginally trying to maintain, righteous indignation, (a trait that so many of us posters seem to worship) maybe is the right way to approach it. I guess we will have to wait to see. What I think this does is say to the Honorable Congressmen, that they do not feel that any of this is necessary, so it is up to you to prove that we are doing something wrong. Go for it, just don't assume guilt. None of us should be doing that.

 

[DocMcHulk]

Good point.

Disney is VERY conscious of children and manipulating them. I started WWIII in the summer of 2011 when I had a social media thread on another Disney site (whose discussion boards are basically dead now) and I used the words 'Disney' and 'child' and 'exploitation' in a post discussing a paid Disney BRAND ADVOCATE's trip around the USA (including WDW and DL stops and a DCL cruise out of Seattle or Vancouver).

Disney is very good at using children (mostly to get their parents to spend more $$$ than they intended), but they'd rather not discuss that (naturally).

I dont think it would be much of a surprise to any parent that toy companies and a company like Disney market to children. It's actually pretty obvious they do! That's how they sell things: "mommy... daddy... i want that!"

That being said, I have issues with tracking my kids (track me all you want, i dont care!) and using that data to spin back on them,

 

[RSoxNo1]

I hear that the MK is in a crash-cleaning mode with Iger coming this week....

That sounds about right. Maybe the leaves will be removed from the Buzz Lightyear queue.

 

[DocMcHulk]

I guess it's more important to look at what Disney elected not to respond to versus what they actually did respond to.

That aside, is it appropriate for anyone, much less the head of TWDC, to use bold underlined text when responding to a Congressman? ... But ... you know what? What really has my attention is that second paragraph, ''We are offended by the ludicrous and utterly ill-informed assertion in your letter dated January 24, 2013, that we would in any way haphazardly or recklessly introduce a program that manipulates children, or wantonly puts their safety at risk.''

All Markey needs to do is read the internal doc that Lee posted for you to understand that it wasnt ludicrous or utterly ill-informed.

 

[Virtual Toad]

Maybe if they actually had something new and worthy in the parks to discuss then everyone wouldn't be so focused on their datamining trip planning scheme.

Conversely, if Disney wasn't so focused on its datamining scheme they might actually have the time and resources to build something new and worthy in the parks. Or perhaps they're focused on datamining because they're no longer capable of building new and exciting things.