-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Updated Flight Ban over WDW Property
- Thread starter donsullivan
- Start date
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
I believe that the ban on under 3000 ft. only applies to MK. If you are in a helicopter like I was a few years ago, we flew over every part of WDW except MK, that is, or at least was, where the restriction applied.
Finallyinflorida
Member
Maybe this is a stupid question, but what is the motivation in just limiting over MK?? Thanks
George Lucas on a Bench
Well-Known Member
They know the other parks are presently **** anyways and only go to DEFCON 3 if the Magic Kingdom is threatened.
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
It's not a stupid question, it is just an unanswerable one. They must have some reason, but, I don't know what it is. Perhaps they think that doing something to the busiest park with the most people in it, would have more bang for the terrorist buck, (forgive the pun) then any of the others.
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
I don't really care for the writing myself, and I'm a Christian. However, are you really under the impression that people aren't complaining over the writing right now? I am sure that someone is getting scathing calls about this on a daily basis. And I seriously doubt that there would be riots in the streets if someone put "Allah loves u" in the sky. I doubt it would be any different if they put "Satan is my master" in the sky. Most people just don't care. I am sure that the few lunatics that do/would care are already on the phone.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
The point of advertising is to get someone to remember something. You sure remember this so the advertising is working
That's just adorable. Especially the eye roll. Surely by rules of the Internet you have invalidated everything I have said with that wit of yours, even though you completely avoided addressing what is actually being discussed.
That said, I agree - the point of advertising is to get someone to remember something - a message you want to convey. In this case, it doesn't seem as if just about anyone actually gets the point the person doing it is trying to make, which is what makes the advertising unsuccessful. I've been a member of this board for over a decade, and every time the topic rolls around I see the same misconceptions come up and the same type of responses due to this misunderstanding of why it's there and why it's done.
To be honest, my hope in posting what I did was to save folks that embarrassment by giving the facts of this specific sky writing situation. To prevent what usually happens, which is akin to someone who is jumping to defend a graffiti artist who wrote something about "yo mamma" before you realize it's your mamma it is directed to.
Personally, it doesn't offend me - I think it's ridiculous, hypocritical, and most of all just plain obnoxious, but it doesn't offend me.
But I do see why it does offend some people. I know some it does, and not for the reasons folks might think. A lot of folks who actually believe very deeply in the meaning of the phrase find it simply crass to be presented in that manner, even without knowing it's being co-opted here by an anti-Disney activist.
Then there are other folks that surprise even me - my step-father, for instance, who was really offended by it - that's what the nuns used to say when he was in school after they were done physically abusing students as punishment (an experience that millions of children had who went to similar schools up until not that very long ago). It just wasn't something he wished to be reminded of while attending a theme park and considering how many folks went through similar things, and worse, I doubt he is alone. That's the point - that phrase is very divisive because it's been used by a lot of different folks for a lot of different reasons, many of which aren't especially pleasant.
If folks want to support/defend it, I just think they should be aware of the actual situation and what the intent behind it is, and although I know it's so difficult for some people to understand - objections to it are not just a shallow attack on their personal beliefs as some folks so quickly jump to assuming as demonstrated by the responses.
I think that knowing why it's done (anti-Disney activism from someone who has religious objections to how the Walt Disney Company), what it's actually trying to say (that if you are at WDW, you need that message because the person doing it assumes you must not believe in the message if you choose to give Disney your dollars), and the fact is, for whatever reason, obviously there are quite a number of folks who are offended and/or annoyed by it - common sense/decency to me seems to lead me to think that most folks, even folks who just generally like and/or believe in the phrase being used, should be able to agree that it's not necessary, or at least really not the most appropriate time or place for such messaging.
But, because Internet, I know that's very likely a pipe dream.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I think Goofyernmost is on the right track with his assumption - I also think they probably are limited in how large the no-fly area can be, especially for private property. So they put it over what would be considered to be the most vulnerable area. The other parks are also quite close to public areas, highways, etc. - it would be much more of an inconvenience to extend the no-fly area that much.
Also as Goffyernmost said, it's all pure speculation on our part - but as far as speculation goes, I think the above is pretty close to what it may be without actually knowing the specifics we are not privy to.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
Ah, the above was referencing the flight ban in general - I think the additional drone language is just an update being done to all flight bans due to new technology.
Sadly, it means that if I ever get to spend a night in the Castle suite, I can't get Amazon to deliver a package to me there - the horrors!
Seriously, though, I am curious technically how that would work, as Disney has tested various things with drone and drone-like technology for it's own shows - is WDW themselves allowed to violate the flight ban? That's an interesting legal question. I'm not sure how that works, perhaps they apply for an exemption?
Goofyernmost
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the support. Another reason for my thinking that way is that I don't think any of that restriction came to being until after 9/11. I could be wrong on that one, but, I don't seem to remember any discussion about that previous to 2001.
I'd love to see "praise Alah" written in the sky and then see how much the people quote freedom of religion and speech haha
Tom Morrow
Well-Known Member
Smart people would quote freedom of speech, the redneck tea party masses that make up a sizable portion of the US population would complain.
xdan0920
Think for yourselfer
There's a sizable portion of the population that would view both the skywriting, and your comments as unnecessarily inflammatory.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
Ah, the above was referencing the flight ban in general - I think the additional drone language is just an update being done to all flight bans due to new technology.
Sadly, it means that if I ever get to spend a night in the Castle suite, I can't get Amazon to deliver a package to me there - the horrors!
Seriously, though, I am curious technically how that would work, as Disney has tested various things with drone and drone-like technology for it's own shows - is WDW themselves allowed to violate the flight ban? That's an interesting legal question. I'm not sure how that works, perhaps they apply for an exemption?
Didn't they "violate" their own airspace with the dragon stunt used during press events for MK?
neoshinok
Well-Known Member
False.
The U.S. Constitution is a wholly secular document. It contains no mention of Christianity or Jesus Christ. In fact, the Constitution refers to religion only twice in the First Amendment, which bars laws "respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," and in Article VI, which prohibits "religious tests" for public office. Both of these provisions are evidence that the country was not founded as officially Christian.
https://www.au.org/files/christian-nation-pdf.pdf
CDavid
Well-Known Member
No, completely true, despite modern (and erroneous) claims to the contrary. While such revisionist history may be popular in 2014, such claims are essentially works of fiction. You are referencing a biased source, regardless, so that is part of the confusion (and they are hardly the only group to attempt to twist history to suit their agenda).
If you (or anyone) want the truth, don't take my or anyone else's word for it. Go back and read the original accounts from the people who actually crafted the United States Constitution (and what they said and did at the time), and see if you can still support that claim.
But can we please not derail a thread which some of us are glad to see remain open for discussion? This tangent would do that.
Last edited:
neoshinok
Well-Known Member
Perhaps you would accept the Treaty of Tripoli (ratified unanimously by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams) as an unbiased source.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
MrMorrowTom
Member
I think the writing is kinda annoying but not for the messages but for the flocks of people who stop mid walk to stare at the writing. They will stand there the entire time watching and taking pictures. Try walking through a crowd like that right after festival of the lion king let's out.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
Interesting article on this topic...
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-disney-airspace-20141110-story.html
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-disney-airspace-20141110-story.html