You post was acquisitional. Imagine if you stood up in a meeting room, faced a coworker of yours... mentioned what he does outside the office.. and lead in with 'This leads to a number of questions...'. Do you really think he'd look at you as simply curious?
Your questions like 'And how much law can someone really practice...' are again trying to call into question the association the labeling of the association claimed. These are acquisitional questions that are written to challenge publicized associations.
Imagine if I stood in your office and said to a coworker, 'How much work could Kuhio REALLY do here?'
You refer to lay definitions... but you are messing in an area and with a profession where ethics is not a loose term with inconsequential meanings. One should be careful.. because such posts could even be taken as defamation.
OK... by "acquisitional," I'm going to guess you meant "accusational," because otherwise your post makes even less sense. But I honestly am not quite sure what you mean by "call into question the association the labeling of the association claimed," or what exactly "publicized associations" are. Yes, I'm sure those are simply typos born of haste, but I don't think correcting them would really change your post much, given that the parts I do understand barely merit a response.
If you seriously think that raising a series of questions on a message board about a public figure (something that happens countless times every single day with regard to pretty much any public figure you can think of) is similar in any way to the act of openly challenging a co-worker's productivity or work ethic in a shared professional setting, then... I really have no response. The analogy is so feeble that it conclusively indicates that any meaningful, substantive discussion on this issue is at an end.
This is the third time: Tricat is a real place! It's listed as "past" on LinkedIn, anyway; its website today has no relation to the amount of time he can spend on whatever he wants to do now.
What's your point here? I never claimed it wasn't a real place. I initially said that Tricat's website doesn't include basic information about the company, such as where it is located. Considering only that limited amount of information at the time, I mused that Tricat seemed like an entity that was created as a shell.
You responded later that you found a brick-and-mortar location for Tricat in New Jersey. That discovery is in no way inconsistent with any of my subsequent comments about Mongello's titles and positions with Tricat. Holding what is essentially a sinecure with a genuine, operational company would certainly be "a means to 'fluff up' Mongello's resume" (as I wrote in a later post).
If you were talking about this kind of stuff that's actually related to Disney, I wouldn't have batted an eye. ... I cannot see how this stuff is even tangentially related to Disney. If some blogger is charged with a serious crime that's not related to Disney, then sure, it's worth discussing. That would bring up a discussion that Spirit has been mentioning about how TDO lets these people represent WDW in a de facto way.
This is more than just tangentially related to Disney. The actions and conduct of any entity, whether a corporation or an individual, with whom Disney is affiliated -- whether expressly, such as a corporate partner, or implicitly, such as a favored podcaster -- is subject to inquiry because it isn't just things like serious crimes that can adversely impact the Disney company.
Disney picks and chooses its corporate partners carefully. There are companies with whom Disney is unlikely ever to be associated, simply because the companies' brands or images are not consistent with Disney's. That's not to say that these are corporations that are known to have defrauded the public or to have done anything "criminal"; they may be generally well regarded by the public, but are just not a good fit for the specific family-friendly image that Disney has carefully cultivated.
The Disney company ought to be similarly careful with regard to individuals with whom it may come to be associated in the public eye -- such as bloggers and podcasters who are ubiquitously present in the parks, and who have gear and attire that suggest to the general public that they are officially Disney-sanctioned. Disney ought to be vetting these individuals far more carefully than it has appeared to have done so far. Even if such individuals aren't doing anything close to criminal or even illegal, they may still be conducting themselves in a way that's not befitting an implicit affiliation with the Disney company.
In short, Disney has traditionally had very high standards (or at least projected the public image that it has very high standards) with regard to those with whom it associates. The fact that it seems not to be employing even a modicum of scrutiny as to a highly-specific segment of the population is a legitimate reason for inquiry, if not outright concern.
