I think the "lifestyler" lifestyle is creepy, too, but isn't this veering towards personal attacks that don't belong here, delving into his personal dealings like this? I'm no ethicist, but why is it improper for a lawyer to also run separate, non-legal businesses? He could be listed on the firm's website for several reasons... I really don't see how that is our business. Trash the way that he has appointed himself to the position of Disney CM all you want, but what the heck does [what I assume is] his dad's law firm have to do with anything? There does appear to a really-for-real Tricat medical imaging center in Edison, NJ. The website is such a shell that maybe it is just that... a shell. I'm not even sure what you're implying by bringing up the quality of this website... if you're making a fictitious website for SPECTRE or KAOS, you'd probably do a better job of making it look functional. Archive.org shows what seems like a functional website there in the past, then it went to godaddy, now there's this.
I don't see how these types of attacks help our discussion of the problems in WDW, does someone care to explain?
With all of the things that are said on this message board every single day about countless individuals -- WDWMagic posters, politicians, people within the Disney company, bloggers, etc. -- you choose to single out my post as an example of a "personal attack"? Seriously?
Frankly, your use of the loaded adjective "creepy" to describe "the 'lifestyler' lifestyle" is more of an "attack" on an entire group of people than my posing a series of perfectly reasonable questions about someone who's both a public figure (as WDW1974 explained very well) and intimately involved with Disney theme parks and the fan community -- the precise focus of these message boards.
And I'm honestly baffled by why you feel it's acceptable to "[t]rash" someone for "appoint[ing] himself to the position of Disney CM" -- if the word "trash" isn't synonymous with a verbal attack, I'm not sure what is -- whereas you balk at the idea of posing a genuine inquiry into the manner in which a public figure conducts his public business.
I didn't dig up personal information about a private individual, such as another poster, that the person didn't wish to be made known. Rather, I simply looked at the self-promotional information that a widely-known public figure himself put on the internet for the entire world to see. In fact, the information at issue -- personal credentials, accomplishments, and titles -- is information that, by its very nature, can only have its maximum beneficial effect to the extent it's disseminated to as broad a segment of the general population as possible. As such, none of the things I addressed about Mongello are "personal dealings" that ought to be off-limits in any sort of public discussion.
Perhaps you simply take issue with my use of the term "ethical" as a means of framing an inquiry into how Mongello conducts his business. But nearly every comment on this thread (and others) that ponders why an individual like Mongello can run his blogcast and related Disney businesses in the way that he does -- and why he (and certain others) are allowed to do things that members of the general public, and even the media, are not allowed to do -- is an implicit inquiry into whether conduct of this nature is legitimate... or legal... or right... or proper... or
ethical.
In the future, if I have questions about how a person like Mongello can legitimately do the things he does, I'm going to ask them. If someone out there has actual answers, I would love to hear them. And if nobody knows the answers... well, that raises a whole other series of questions, doesn't it!
