You're right...I was getting a little ahead of myself. I meant regarding the accrual...whether it is daily or weekly...Federal law only requires 40 hours in a week before OT must be paid. Some states have it at 8 hours in a day.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Spirited News & Observations II -- NGE/Baxter
- Thread starter WDW1974
- Start date
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
But would I not also be lying if I went around telling people that your résumé says you worked at the corporate offices of Time-Warner? It may be what you'd like people so assume, but it is still an exaggeration of what actually happened.
dagobert
Active Member
Doesn't the DL Fantasyland look similar to the one in Paris? For DLP's Fantasyland WDI wanted to add a Little Mermaid ride. It can be seen on early park maps and on the 2006 TLM DVD there is a short video with Tony Baxter about that. So I guess it would fit.
Darth Sidious
Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
The issue was a member said 74 should pay WDWMAGIC... The clicks he created here pays, that was the point. Yeah, I am being played on a forum. If I let a forum sway my opinion then, at that point, I'd be an idiot. It just so happens I agree with 74 on most things, but not everything.
Lee
Adventurer
I don't see what you are getting at.
You seem to be saying that 74, and perhaps PhotoDave, were in some way lying in their characterizations of Blondie's resume.
How do you get that?
She stated that she worked as a correspondent for the NYTC, in a clear attempt to mislead casual readers that she had in fact done work for The Times.
74 and Dave called her on it, saying in effect that she was claiming to work for The Times.
It would be a great stretch to characterize their statements as untrue, as they are accurately portraying her intent. Did she SAY "I write for The New York Times"? No. She implied it. Close enough.
Jumping on them and claiming "exaggeration" is just looking for an argument. We all know what they meant.
Darth Sidious
Authentically Disney Distinctly Chinese
Amen!
Let me poke a couple of holes in your argument:
1. Look what appears right atop the Jackson Generals' website:
2. Let's take an example of current General's 2nd Baseman Jack Marder. Now, he is in the Mariner's minor league organization right now. Would he be wrong to say that he plays for the Mariners? I don't know, let's take a look how many media outlets reported on it per their journalists.
As you can tell, the journalists who wrote these articles, who are held to the highest ethical standards, claim that he was in fact drafted by the MLB club the Seattle Mariners, not any of their MILB affiliates.
What gives?
Now, if the narrative seems to be changing from "working for the NYTCo is a lie" to "you shouldnt be a PR hack for a company and work for the NYTCo," that is something I can get behind.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
It resembles Paris' in some ways, yes. There are still differences, though. I just don't see the Mermaid theme in Fantasyland.
Can you see a building looking like this:
Or this...:
...going into an area that looks like this (sorry for the small picture)?
Sure, you could change the facade, but Mermaid's sea theme fits better to me in Paradise Pier. Stories that would work in DL's Fantasyland would be stories like Rapunzel.
dagobert
Active Member
At DLP it was considered for the Italian area of Fantasyland, opposite of the Pizzeria Bella Notte and next to IASW. If I'm not mistaken for Paris they envisioned the same building like in Florida.
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
Build it in Paris, but not California. It doesn't matter anyway, it has already been built in California and not in Fantasyland, LOL.
Lee
Adventurer
*sigh*
Clearly, my example was for illustrative purposes only. I certainly didn't bother to do any research on the damn thing, nor di I expect anyone to subject it to such scrutiny. Thanks!
And the idea of PR not working for media has always been part of the discussion, just one that has been overshadowed.
Let's say I worked in the entertainment department. Let's say I was on a team that developed the shows in the park. My title was Project Development Manager (I'm just making the title up). I list Warner Bros. as my employer, despite the fact I worked for Six Flags. My resume, maybe factually accurate, but is so vaguely descriptive that the reader may imply that I developed movies for Warner Bros., which is nowhere near my qualifications level. Or I could have been the Operations Manager in the Operations Department. That means something different at different companies. At Six Flags, operations included rides, ticketing and park services (janitorial). Again, if I vaguely describe the job, the implication may be that I know how to run the physical aspects of a movie studio/studio lot.
The point is I did NOT work for Warner Bros. The fact that they owned Six Flags still does not make me an employee of Warner Bros. It's not like I could just stroll onto the Warner Bros. lot and say "Hey, I work for Warner Bros. Let me in." Saying I am employed by Warner Bros. is specious at best and outright lying at worst.
Again, it's about misleading to make yourself sound better or have your experience carry more weight than it really does. If this woman had published articles in the Boston Globe, would she still have described her employer as The New York Times Company? Probably not. The Boston Globe is a nationally-known newspaper that would carry some prestige. She most certainly listed the New York Times Company as her employer because the reader automatically jumps to The New York Times part. It's not like she worked for Conde Nast, where none of the publications is a subsidiary company and where she would in fact be working for Conde Nast. Whichever company's HR department hires you, that's who you work for.
***EDIT
I see where you are going with your question. If I told you "I work for Warner Bros. as an operations manager." you would, I assume, ask me what that means. I can vaguely describe the process...factually...but imply that it is done for the studio, not a theme park. If you tell people about me and describe my job, YOU are not lying. You are unintentionally perpetuating the falsehood I created. And doing exactly what I want you to do.
I think the whole problem with this "fibbing" issue is that the number of people who are of the post modern no absolutes era don't have a problem with it and those of us who are from the time period where 2+2=4 and didn't get participation ribbons still have a problem with false statements.
I agree with every thing in every post I read. Thus, my opinion is in a constant state of flux.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Wanna know another dirty secret about newspapers and the internet? We don't read the comments on stories. We hate that there are comments on the stories? Why? Because we think very little of the commenters based on what comes out of their mouth: people willing to split the smallest hair and argue for hours with zero sense of accountability or right and wrong. It always devolved into personal attacks... much like this place is.
I see the same posters over and over repeating themselves, arguing for the sake of arguing. All the points have been made. I'm done repeating myself; my points on what is right and wrong on this issue are pretty clear. I've also been pretty adamant on not debating this, mostly because I feel there's no grey area and there's nothing to debate.
There are posters in this thread whom I have lost complete and total respect for because they've proven themselves to have complete moral ambiguity, zero sense of right and wrong and are just here to argue and have devolved into trolling for responses.
If you don't get it, I'm sorry. I'm sorry no one instilled you at a young age with what was right in this world. I know that I learned very young that that you don't lie or mislead people. (Values that I think Walt Disney was pretty black and white with as well.)
If you feel you need to continue to argue to fulfill whatever need for attention you crave, look elsewhere. Because I'm not going to feed it.
I see the same posters over and over repeating themselves, arguing for the sake of arguing. All the points have been made. I'm done repeating myself; my points on what is right and wrong on this issue are pretty clear. I've also been pretty adamant on not debating this, mostly because I feel there's no grey area and there's nothing to debate.
There are posters in this thread whom I have lost complete and total respect for because they've proven themselves to have complete moral ambiguity, zero sense of right and wrong and are just here to argue and have devolved into trolling for responses.
If you don't get it, I'm sorry. I'm sorry no one instilled you at a young age with what was right in this world. I know that I learned very young that that you don't lie or mislead people. (Values that I think Walt Disney was pretty black and white with as well.)
If you feel you need to continue to argue to fulfill whatever need for attention you crave, look elsewhere. Because I'm not going to feed it.
I understand. And I do enjoy your posts, @Lee. My only point, and being a huge baseball fan in this example didn't help you, was that any time you work under the umbrella of a parent company, you are not out of line by saying you work for that company.
As I said before, could/should she have listed below the NYTCo line on LinkedIn that she worked for the Ledger? Sure. Would anyone conducting the interview that is worth 2 cents further investigated that? Absolutely.
I agree that the PR/Journalist mix was briefly, if not barely, mentioned before. But your colleague has chosen to continuoulsy try nailing down a point that everyone in the real business world (though not his friends, I'm sure. Or is it fanbois? Either way. ) would not blink an eye at because there is nothing TO blink an eye.
If you (generally speaking, not you personally) get off on taking down the Social Media Dept of The Walt Disney Company, great! More power to you! But if your main artillery is the New York Times COMPANY argument, then I'm afraid you're going to look like Kim Jung Un...a power hungry little punk whom nobody really takes seriously, but goes through the motions for the sake of appeasement.
Anyway. I'm sure I'll be accused of having an agenda because I am not fully behind his agenda. Or being unethical, or whatever. But it really, does not matter. I'm not really a "kiss the ring" type...regardless of how much that may irk certain spirits.
wdwfan4ver
Well-Known Member
I thought there was a rumor about the Door Coaster being of part of an announcement for DHS. The rumor was the Door Coaster and Carsland being announced for DHS. The last time I read any info about the rumor was last month or the month before.
Maybe Lee, Martin, or Spirit can explain what happened to the part the Door Coaster being part of a future announcement for DHS that also supposed to have Carsland. I want to know if the budget changed or the Coaster didn't fit into the budget.
Totally agree with you.
To be fair, you've been done with this argument going on 3 days now...don't tell me, show me.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Well, to be fair, you have no understanding of right and wrong.
Trying to explain to you the difference between a respectful dialogue and arguing would be pointless and a waste of time.