WDW Spirited Quickees

[twebber55]

Theres something about Spirits threads...

yeah they usually start out great with great information and then someone comes in and turns them into dumpster fires

 

[Rasvar]

Even internet flamewars have succumb to time/space compression. In my day, that would have been a good weeks worth. [Old fart goes and sits getting more popcorn ready just in case]

 

[flynnibus]

And when you use a really low quality self-publisher (and end up with books that look like they were made on "ink jet printers") - that just says you are going the super-cheap route to make as many fast, quick bucks as you can - not trying to give a quality piece of work life.

It wasn't cheap either! $30 and not worth it because the photos are all so dark and muddy because of the paper it's printed on. Severely disappointed. All the other Disney books I have are done quite nicely.

 

[flynnibus]

[...]he immediately started jumping to questions that implied the worse.

And that's the crux of it and why I replied to it in the first place. If you wanted to see a flame war... I should have brought my lawyer sister in who would have lit him up for that stuff

 

[Atomicmickey]

A few things:

1)For a while now, I've figured that Lou Mongello actually worked for Disney.
They obviously don't care about what he's doing, right? He's not exactly under
the radar.

2)notfrostyjosh, what's your website? Hey, who knows, maybe it's pretty cool
and I'll want to visit there.

3)Anyone got any tasty new tidbits about upcoming attractions?

 

[Lee]

2)notfrostyjosh, what's your website? Hey, who knows, maybe it's pretty cool and I'll want to visit there.

It's not so much, and you probably wouldn't.
It isn't in the same class as the major Disney sites.

 

[lazyboy97o]

It's not so much, and you probably wouldn't.
It isn't in the same class as the major Disney sites.

It is kind of nice to see somebody who has a bit of an actual agenda. His site is easy to find and he is trolling (his own words) a bigger site hoping to gain some hits from the curious. Probably jealous that he hasn't been asked aboard the gravy train.

 

[flynnibus]

It is kind of nice to see somebody who has a bit of an actual agenda. His site is easy to find and he is trolling (his own words) a bigger site hoping to gain some hits from the curious. Probably jealous that he hasn't been asked aboard the gravy train.

some things never change...

a thread from a year and half ago on another site...

He's notfrostyjosh on the DIS. He likes to pimp the site alot, which I'm shocked the mods haven't stopped him from doing...

 

[Captain Chaos]

So, what have we learned here:

1) some idiots continue to run wild on these forums
2) some idiots come here to use this site to promote their own horrible and bland site to try to generate some traffic, otherwise they would have none
3) someone is so embarrassed by their own site they deny they are running it
4) two more people made my ignore list
5) many brain cells have been destroyed in responding to the drivel posted by the new resident troll

Or and I forgot

6) some people have such empty lives they need to win an Internet argument

Never a dull moment on WDWMagic LOL.....

 

[Kuhio]

I think it matters because in this case the website/blog/podcast are no longer a hobby, but an actual business venture from which the owner admits to now deriving his income. Looking into other and past business positions seems natural. And while I think @Kuhio may have raised some interesting thoughts, they are ultimately hurt because his research appears to have been rather brief. Instead of further investigating these questions and how they might be, such as looking into titles used at law firms or Archive.org, he immediately started jumping to questions that implied the worse.

The fact that the "research" was indeed rather brief was self-evident from the original post, and meant to be so. I looked at the WDW Radio site, which included a link to the law firm site. Mongello's bio on the law firm site included a link to the Tricat site.

At no point did I imply that I'd done any digging around on the subject beyond clicking on links, or that my statements were meant to represent conclusions I'd reached about Mongello based on anything approximating thorough "research."

As you stated, what I did was to raise thoughts -- the thoughts that occurred to me based precisely on a limited review of the publicly available, easily accessed information that Mongello himself put out on the internet. As such, I would think that they would also be the kind of thoughts that might occur to other, similarly-situated people as well.

And, since some of those other people might not have the time, inclination, or ability to conduct further research beyond clicking on some readily available links, the overarching question is this: would someone like Mongello want to promote himself and his various businesses in a such a way as to engender those kinds of thoughts in casual observers who visit his various sites?

More importantly, would or should Disney be concerned that those kinds of thoughts might be raised in people who might also be under the impression that Mongello works for or is officially affiliated with Disney?

The fact that the thoughts I raised may have been troubling -- and may have led to the inference that something less than proper could be going on -- was exactly the point. If those thoughts occurred to me based on my limited review of a couple of websites, then they are bound to arise in other people as well, and that's not good -- not good for Mongello, and not good for Disney.

What has surprised me most about some of the reactions to my post is the fact that simply pointing out that a situation exists that may create the appearance of impropriety has itself been viewed as an "accusation" of impropriety -- or even as an "attack."

I don't know whether it's the election-season atmosphere, with its ubiquitous onslaught of ads and editorials, that has created this kind of hypersensitivity -- the idea that any commentary that even suggests a whiff of negativity must necessarily be accusatory at best, or an outright attack at worst. Regardless, it's a cause for dismay.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The fact that the "research" was indeed rather brief was self-evident from the original post, and meant to be so. I looked at the WDW Radio site, which included a link to the law firm site. Mongello's bio on the law firm site included a link to the Tricat site.

At no point did I imply that I'd done any digging around on the subject beyond clicking on links, or that my statements were meant to represent conclusions I'd reached about Mongello based on anything approximating thorough "research."

As you stated, what I did was to raise thoughts -- the thoughts that occurred to me based precisely on a limited review of the publicly available, easily accessed information that Mongello himself put out on the internet. As such, I would think that they would also be the kind of thoughts that might occur to other, similarly-situated people as well.

And, since some of those other people might not have the time, inclination, or ability to conduct further research beyond clicking on some readily available links, the overarching question is this: would someone like Mongello want to promote himself and his various businesses in a such a way as to engender those kinds of thoughts in casual observers who visit his various sites?

If it is quick, easily available information, then there is no point in presenting it and raising questions as this could be done by any person.

The fact that the thoughts I raised may have been troubling -- and may have led to the inference that something less than proper could be going on -- was exactly the point. If those thoughts occurred to me based on my limited review of a couple of websites, then they are bound to arise in other people as well, and that's not good -- not good for Mongello, and not good for Disney.

Poor information often leads to poor speculation and guessing, but that does not justify such practices.

What has surprised me most about some of the reactions to my post is the fact that simply pointing out that a situation exists that may create the appearance of impropriety has itself been viewed as an "accusation" of impropriety -- or even as an "attack."

This is because the questions you have raised were rather loaded to suggest improper behaviors.

 

[WDW1974]

The fact that the "research" was indeed rather brief was self-evident from the original post, and meant to be so. I looked at the WDW Radio site, which included a link to the law firm site. Mongello's bio on the law firm site included a link to the Tricat site.

At no point did I imply that I'd done any digging around on the subject beyond clicking on links, or that my statements were meant to represent conclusions I'd reached about Mongello based on anything approximating thorough "research."

As you stated, what I did was to raise thoughts -- the thoughts that occurred to me based precisely on a limited review of the publicly available, easily accessed information that Mongello himself put out on the internet. As such, I would think that they would also be the kind of thoughts that might occur to other, similarly-situated people as well.

And, since some of those other people might not have the time, inclination, or ability to conduct further research beyond clicking on some readily available links, the overarching question is this: would someone like Mongello want to promote himself and his various businesses in a such a way as to engender those kinds of thoughts in casual observers who visit his various sites?

More importantly, would or should Disney be concerned that those kinds of thoughts might be raised in people who might also be under the impression that Mongello works for or is officially affiliated with Disney?

The fact that the thoughts I raised may have been troubling -- and may have led to the inference that something less than proper could be going on -- was exactly the point. If those thoughts occurred to me based on my limited review of a couple of websites, then they are bound to arise in other people as well, and that's not good -- not good for Mongello, and not good for Disney.

What has surprised me most about some of the reactions to my post is the fact that simply pointing out that a situation exists that may create the appearance of impropriety has itself been viewed as an "accusation" of impropriety -- or even as an "attack."

I don't know whether it's the election-season atmosphere, with its ubiquitous onslaught of ads and editorials, that has created this kind of hypersensitivity -- the idea that any commentary that even suggests a whiff of negativity must necessarily be accusatory at best, or an outright attack at worst. Regardless, it's a cause for dismay.

Dude, I think it's VERY simple. You're writing above your audience. You're the NYT. And this is the O-Sentinel (in some cases) and you've done a wonderful, FAIR and eloquent job of expressing it and folks are plain flat out missing the point.

You can go back and forth all day (for days on end) and not much will change. It's like the people who think when I say a story was planted in the NYT that it means someone from TWDC paid Brooks Barnes cash to write about the Bear Band.

I'm sure the election season has a role in that as well (and let's recall that many voters vote based on ONE issue, so there are many simple-minded folks who stick on one idea and the same is true with Disney).

Your post above is damn near perfect in explaining your feelings and why Mongello should be scrutinized and if people are not going to get it there's nothing you can do short of hitting them over the head with a Mickey waffle maker.

 

[WDW1974]

If it is quick, easily available information, then there is no point in presenting it and raising questions as this could be done by any person.

so, now, we're going to criticize folks for putting info out there to interpret on their own?

Poor information often leads to poor speculation and guessing, but that does not justify such practices.

The info wasn't poor at all. It was accurate. No, it wasn't complete. You want to criticize that Kuhio didn't present a dossier on the life the times of Loveable Lou Mongello? ... If everyone here had to present every fact available about everything they posted, we wouldn't have a forum. And it's beyond ludicrous. Seriously.

This is because the questions you have raised were rather loaded to suggest improper behaviors.

No. I think some folks here, frankly, are writing on a higher intellectual plane and others, who usually show a fair level of intelligence, are being obstinate whiners and like we've somehow infringed on some Disney Lifestyle parasite's constitutional rights. It's really absurd.

Kuhio simply took what LOU PUT OUT TO THE WIDE WORLD TO PROMOTE HIMSELF.
That opens you up to criticism. Period. That's setting aside all the knowledge the community here has about Lou's questionable behavior with Disney and the casual guest.

And all this talk does is remove the focus from that in exchange for some pseudo intellectual babble about how deep one should be looking into Lou and what questions they should raise.

I don't the fan community should be charged with having to do background checks on every Disney Lifestyle the company decides to fly to Orlando, put up for free with family/friends, give free admission media/food/swag and access to The Too Many Jasons to.

Really, focus on Disney and Social Media and why Lou gets away with things you damn well know you, I or Kuhio couldn't and stop worrying whether we've somehow gotten too personal. How laughable is this that we've decided to debate what's taken directly from WDWRADIO's own site, which Kuhio has pointed out multiple times is there to PROMOTE Lou and his relationship with TWDC.

It's almost like a zombie apocalypse has taken over some of the brains here.

 

[Kuhio]

If it is quick, easily available information, then there is no point in presenting it and raising questions as this could be done by any person.

This makes no sense. You're essentially saying that no one should present this information, because anyone could present it. But if the fact that anyone could say what you're about to say is a reason for you not to say it, then no one would ever say anything because there's always the possibility that some other hypothetical person will say it instead.

Because the scope of my various interests far exceeds the amount of free time I have to surf the internet in search of information that is of interest to me, I find it useful when other people present such information to me, even if I theoretically could find the same information with ease were I only to have more time in the day.

In fact, consolidating information that is otherwise readily available elsewhere, along with offering thoughts as to that information, are some of the most useful functions of a message board. When Disney changes operating hours for its parks or announces the dates for an upcoming refurb, that information is readily available and easy to find, but no one would question a post on WDWMagic relaying the information, or providing commentary as to what such changes might mean.

 

[njDizFan]

Wow,what was the name of this thread again...Spirited quickees, this is slowly become similar to an epic thread I remember from the past. Kudos to Steve for allowing such dialogue and leaving it up for everyone to read. This shows a little insight into our fearless site owners ego and reputation.

That being said, this site sure has been getting a lot of scoops lately...don't be afraid to look at ourselves...even a troll can have some salient observations

 

[lazyboy97o]

so, now, we're going to criticize folks for putting info out there to interpret on their own?

Except he did not just post information and leave it to others to interpret. He raised specific questions in a negative manner. The caveats of technical and lay ethics only further implies that while these activities may be legal and ethical by technical/professional standards, they would not typically be considered ethical by one unfamiliar with the specific rules.

The info wasn't poor at all. It was accurate. No, it wasn't complete. You want to criticize that Kuhio didn't present a dossier on the life the times of Loveable Lou Mongello? ... If everyone here had to present every fact available about everything they posted, we wouldn't have a forum. And it's beyond ludicrous. Seriously.

There is plenty of room between quick looks and a whole dossier.

No. I think some folks here, frankly, are writing on a higher intellectual plane and others, who usually show a fair level of intelligence, are being obstinate whiners and like we've somehow infringed on some Disney Lifestyle parasite's constitutional rights. It's really absurd.

Kuhio simply took what LOU PUT OUT TO THE WIDE WORLD TO PROMOTE HIMSELF.
That opens you up to criticism. Period. That's setting aside all the knowledge the community here has about Lou's questionable behavior with Disney and the casual guest.

The critique is not on whether or not it is proper to look into what a self-positioned public figure is doing, both publicly and I would say even not as publicly. The issue is this specific instance in which rather banal information was made out to look like something worse. It only hurts the issue because it is making something out of nothing. It is a cry of "Wolf!" when there was never anything there.

And all this talk does is remove the focus from that in exchange for some pseudo intellectual babble about how deep one should be looking into Lou and what questions they should raise.

I don't the fan community should be charged with having to do background checks on every Disney Lifestyle the company decides to fly to Orlando, put up for free with family/friends, give free admission media/food/swag and access to The Too Many Jasons to.

Really, focus on Disney and Social Media and why Lou gets away with things you damn well know you, I or Kuhio couldn't and stop worrying whether we've somehow gotten too personal. How laughable is this that we've decided to debate what's taken directly from WDWRADIO's own site, which Kuhio has pointed out multiple times is there to PROMOTE Lou and his relationship with TWDC.

It's almost like a zombie apocalypse has taken over some of the brains here.

The debate is not about the content, which is rather banal, but how that content was extrapolated into something that was not really present. As of right now it seems that the worst thing Mongello has done is not properly update his webpages. Some quick looking and it looks like Tricat was acquired in 2010.

This makes no sense. You're essentially saying that no one should present this information, because anyone could present it. But if the fact that anyone could say what you're about to say is a reason for you not to say it, then no one would ever say anything because there's always the possibility that some other hypothetical person will say it instead.

Because the scope of my various interests far exceeds the amount of free time I have to surf the internet in search of information that is of interest to me, I find it useful when other people present such information to me, even if I theoretically could find the same information with ease were I only to have more time in the day.

In fact, consolidating information that is otherwise readily available elsewhere, along with offering thoughts as to that information, are some of the most useful functions of a message board. When Disney changes operating hours for its parks or announces the dates for an upcoming refurb, that information is readily available and easy to find, but no one would question a post on WDWMagic relaying the information, or providing commentary as to what such changes might mean.

The issue is not that you raised general questions, but in the manner in which you raised this questions. I don't even think I'd like Mongello on a personal level, but I think your methodology was flawed.

 

[WDW1974]

The issue is not that you raised general questions, but in the manner in which you raised this questions. I don't even think I'd like Mongello on a personal level, but I think your methodology was flawed.

I could, well no I really couldn't as I am supposed to be getting work done, go back and forth all day.

But really I'm just going to comment on your final comment, which is my 'methodology' ...

Mine is this: Lou Mongello does things that we would get thrown out of Disney Parks and possibly arrested for and never he nor the company answers to why that is. I find that sleezy and smarmy and, frankly, I'd like to see it explained and then stopped. ... He clearly gets special treatment and freebies (such as being flown to Hawaii for a week last year, all expenses paid) and even those around him do (like say having a $200 bar tab disappear by the manager of a resort's bar because someone 'works for Lou' -- yes, I do know this happened for a fact!)

My methodology starts with a very simple premise: if something crawls like a bug and acts like a bug, that it's reasonable to think that it might be Hopper we're dealing with ... and when questions are asked about someone clearly getting special treatment that even credentialed professional journalists don't get and everyone scurries for under the fridge, I've got a pretty damn good idea why.

Now if you'd like to continue to defend Mongello because you feel he's being attacked, not wrongly but in a way that you disagree with, go right ahead.

You do know that even if there's an after-life you won't get credit back for time wasted on Mongello, right?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I could, well no I really couldn't as I am supposed to be getting work done, go back and forth all day.

But really I'm just going to comment on your final comment, which is my 'methodology' ...

Mine is this: Lou Mongello does things that we would get thrown out of Disney Parks and possibly arrested for and never he nor the company answers to why that is. I find that sleezy and smarmy and, frankly, I'd like to see it explained and then stopped. ... He clearly gets special treatment and freebies (such as being flown to Hawaii for a week last year, all expenses paid) and even those around him do (like say having a $200 bar tab disappear by the manager of a resort's bar because someone 'works for Lou' -- yes, I do know this happened for a fact!)

My methodology starts with a very simple premise: if something crawls like a bug and acts like a bug, that it's reasonable to think that it might be Hopper we're dealing with ... and when questions are asked about someone clearly getting special treatment that even credentialed professional journalists don't get and everyone scurries for under the fridge, I've got a pretty damn good idea why.

Now if you'd like to continue to defend Mongello because you feel he's being attacked, not wrongly but in a way that you disagree with, go right ahead.

You do know that even if there's an after-life you won't get credit back for time wasted on Mongello, right?

I was not commenting on your methodology, but Kuhio's. I would not even mind any of these Disney fan celebrities being attacked, but I do think it should be done with information of substance, not extrapolated out of rather little.

 

[Atomicmickey]

So, I've got no dog in this hunt. But I am curious as to why
we all should care, why "this must stop"? Yeah, some people aren't
treated the same in different places. Some people get perks, all over
this great land of ours, in all sorts of public and private ways.
Obviously both he and Disney have "a thing", and it is what it is.
I don't get the pressing need to "expose" this and have it be over with?

'74, you make a point of saying that you hang out with 1 percenters.
I have, too. Perks and special gifts abound in that world and neither
they nor the perk-givers need to "answer to why that is". It just is, it
just happens to be something that they both find beneficial for some
reason. And it's never "fair" to "the rest of us", it just is.

So, they're cozy. So, he gets free stuff. There are always going to be
people like that, right? I'm sure there are a few comped Club 33 memberships
out there, too . . .

I'm not hostile or anything, really. Again, I don't have an opinion about
Mongello aside from not enjoying his podcasts, and I think that all y'all posting
about this are great contriubutors here and seem like good people.

It's all good, I'm just curious as to why the sudden manhunt?

Cheers!

 

[nytimez]

You do know that even if there's an after-life you won't get credit back for time wasted on Mongello, right?

Unless Mongello gets the kind of access in the afterlife that he gets at Disney.