WDW Spirited Quickees

[awoogala]

I'm going to suggest something here that probably should be done in private, but here goes: contact WDW guest relations, tell them what you are posting here, ask them if the man (who you know to be Lou Mongello) is an employee and, if not, why are they allowing him to infringe on the rights of guests who have spent thousands of dollars to have MAGICal WDW vacations. Ask why this is and is anyone allowed to act this way? Seriously.

If you must, or you actually get a person to speak to you (and get their name and position), tell them you've noticed many people asking the same questions on Disney fan sites -- but try and steer clear of this.

honestly, I would be leery since I cannot be 100% positive. I don't know what every blogger looks like, but I would swear it was him. I should have checked out his signage or whatever, but I didn't. Like I mentioned, kid was cranky! If it ever happens again, I will absolutely say something, but I would hate to name names if I am unsure. I suppose when I posted I should have said " an obnoxious blogger who looked just like that guy! " for accuracy, sorry!

 

[lazyboy97o]

But not sure what your point is, that someone should never ask negative or potentially damaging questions?

"Why is [x] spending so much time with that child?" is different than, "I do not know what technically constitutes an inappropriate relationship with a minor, as its probably different than what a person would consider to be inappropriate, but why is [x] spending so much time with that child?" You keep making it an all or nothing regarding asking questions, when the issue is whether or not the questions are loaded.

 

[flynnibus]

Yes, in the USA you can sue anyone for anything with no cause at all. Just one reason why we have fallen as a society.

But not sure what your point is, that someone should never ask negative or potentially damaging questions?

I'm not belaboring this anymore in this thread. The point is there is is a distinction between asking questions verse making claims or suggestions - and the earlier posts risked crossing that line. Post however you want - it's not me that has to defend you.

 

[WDW1974]

"Why is [x] spending so much time with that child?" is different than, "I do not know what technically constitutes an inappropriate relationship with a minor, as its probably different than what a person would consider to be inappropriate, but why is [x] spending so much time with that child?" You keep making it an all or nothing regarding asking questions, when the issue is whether or not the questions are loaded.

And you seem to think I give a damn about asking loaded questions, I don't. I sure as hell wish we had more people in our society that asked tough questions ... and demanded answers (BTW, letting candidates NOT answer questions in Presidential debates and instead start going into talking points is so uniquely American ... when a mod asks you 'What would you do if 2014 and the Afghan people can't handle their own security needs?' answer the damn question. Neither did last night. Both weren't interruped and told 'NOT WHAT WAS ASKED, SIR').

You seem more concerned with how things are worded than you are in finding out the truth. I don't get that 'tude.

Oh, and there's less difference in the two questions you came up with than you may think.

 

[disneyflush]

Yes, in the USA you can sue anyone for anything with no cause at all. Just one reason why we have fallen as a society.

But not sure what your point is, that someone should never ask negative or potentially damaging questions?

If our system was 'loser pays all costs' then it would be cleaned up quite a bit overnight. Frivolous lawsuits would be gone for the most part.

 

[WDW1974]

I'm not belaboring this anymore in this thread. The point is there is is a distinction between asking questions verse making claims or suggestions - and the earlier posts risked crossing that line. Post however you want - it's not me that has to defend you.

WOW!!!

Does this mean, I win?

A discussion with flynn where somebody else gets the last word?!?!? never.

(Folks like Deb Wills really raise the group score ... but she really could use some pics of the new WL rooms ... I don't need to see 2002 rooms and 2007 rooms since I stayed in them!)

 

[WDW1974]

If our system was 'loser pays all costs' then it would be cleaned up quite a bit overnight. Frivolous lawsuits would be gone for the most part.

I don't think that's fair either, but closer ... but I don't want to push the discussion in that direction at all.

 

[Mawg]

Seems like this thread my get locked before the MILF thread.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And you seem to think I give a damn about asking loaded questions, I don't. I sure as hell wish we had more people in our society that asked tough questions ... and demanded answers (BTW, letting candidates NOT answer questions in Presidential debates and instead start going into talking points is so uniquely American ... when a mod asks you 'What would you do if 2014 and the Afghan people can't handle their own security needs?' answer the damn question. Neither did last night. Both weren't interruped and told 'NOT WHAT WAS ASKED, SIR').

You seem more concerned with how things are worded than you are in finding out the truth. I don't get that 'tude.

Oh, and there's less difference in the two questions you came up with than you may think.

Asking a loaded question is not the same as asking a tough question. A loaded question by its very nature is not seeking out the truth, but its own predetermined answer. If you're not concerned with asking loaded questions then it means you're more concerned with pushing your own conclusions and not actually looking for the truth. So yes, how questions are worded and asked is important.

 

[flynnibus]

WOW!!!

Does this mean, I win?

I took my part of the discussion private over 24hrs ago to save from having such a debate. It's not my site, nor my posts.. so I'm not the one at risk And I didn't think it was constructive to continue in the thread.

 

[WDW1974]

Asking a loaded question is not the same as asking a tough question. A loaded question by its very nature is not seeking out the truth, but its own predetermined answer. If you're not concerned with asking loaded questions then it means you're more concerned with pushing your own conclusions and not actually looking for the truth. So yes, how questions are worded and asked is important.

You want to play semantics now about a loaded question vs. a tough question?
As someone who has been paid to get answers, I'll simply say that there's very little if any difference.
You're picking wings off of flies here. You can believe something and still ask a fair question not seeking to simply have your view justified.

But again, since flynn has dropped out ... you're welcome to be Fanboi King (Queen?) of The Last Word.

The floor is yours ...

 

[WDW1974]

I took my part of the discussion private over 24hrs ago to save from having such a debate. It's not my site, nor my posts.. so I'm not the one at risk And I didn't think it was constructive to continue in the thread.

Oh, please you love to debate ... and when you said you were out, now you're back in.

Now ... are you suggesting Steve is at risk here because we're talking about others? Are you saying myself, Kuhio, others? are at risk? Is big bad Lou going to come after us instead of showing some balls and posting here?

You do like playing games here, no doubt about that, and whether I agree with most of your views or not, I don't find it charming at all.

I had a discussion of social media and these folks closed down on another site last summer because the idiot owner couldn't handle the pressure and is addicted to Pixie Dust.

Why is it that these discussions make so many people so uneasy?

 

[Atomicmickey]

That's fine for you. Some of us don't agree. Some of see the seedy relationship and believe it isn't right for a host of reasons from the fact he isn't (or is he?) a paid Disney spinmeister or that he is acting like an employee when in the parks to the fact as a shareholder, some of us don't feel that spending millions of dollars on social media whores is the smartest strategy.



That's totally different. Top 1%ers often are lavished with gifts and things we'd all have to pay for. Same as celebs getting bags of swag at the Oscars or athletes getting all sorts of free stuff from shoe companies etc.

Lou isn't top one percent (and he doesn't even hang out in those circles either) and he isn't an actor, celeb, rock star etc.

So, when he gets things, it's a little different.



Ah, to my knowledge there are no comped memberships to Club 33. There could be, but if so it would be a handful of truly VIPs ... like say maybe Walt's daughter or grandkids etc.



Not a sudden manhunt at all. I've been trying to figure out Mongello's (and others) games for the past year or two. Had no clue who these parasites (with a few exceptions) were before.

I appreciate your thoughtful answers.
Yeah, we'll just have to let it be at that, I think. I'm still not completely on board
with the way you see it, but that's OK. I'm not out to be all cranky, just trying
to truly understand points of view.

 

[RSoxNo1]

And you seem to think I give a damn about asking loaded questions, I don't. I sure as hell wish we had more people in our society that asked tough questions ... and demanded answers (BTW, letting candidates NOT answer questions in Presidential debates and instead start going into talking points is so uniquely American ... when a mod asks you 'What would you do if 2014 and the Afghan people can't handle their own security needs?' answer the damn question. Neither did last night. Both weren't interruped and told 'NOT WHAT WAS ASKED, SIR').

You seem more concerned with how things are worded than you are in finding out the truth. I don't get that 'tude.

Oh, and there's less difference in the two questions you came up with than you may think.

Have you seen The Newsroom on HBO? They proposed a debate format on that show that would be great. In short, it makes people accountable for things that they say.

Bringing this back to Disney, I actually think that from a PR standpoint Disney is too guarded for fear of having to be held accountable for such things. It seems everyone that speaks on behalf of the company does so as if they're a politician. The slant is made with whatever their audience may be. If it's Jay Rasulo, everything is about cost savings and effeciency. If it's an Imagineer it's about the magic. It's very rare that a pointed question gets asked and answered directly, it's always spun through some sort of filter.

 

[WDW1974]

Have you seen The Newsroom on HBO? They proposed a debate format on that show that would be great. In short, it makes people accountable for things that they say.

Bringing this back to Disney, I actually think that from a PR standpoint Disney is too guarded for fear of having to be held accountable for such things. It seems everyone that speaks on behalf of the company does so as if they're a politician. The slant is made with whatever their audience may be. If it's Jay Rasulo, everything is about cost savings and effeciency. If it's an Imagineer it's about the magic. It's very rare that a pointed question gets asked and answered directly, it's always spun through some sort of filter.

Yes, it's why I once made a Disney publicity hack cry ... and oh boy, did it fill me with joy and ... wait for it ... wait for it ... MAGIC!

 

[lazyboy97o]

You want to play semantics now about a loaded question vs. a tough question?
As someone who has been paid to get answers, I'll simply say that there's very little if any difference.
You're picking wings off of flies here. You can believe something and still ask a fair question not seeking to simply have your view justified.

It may be a matter of semantics, but I think it is an important distinction. I do not think the ends always justifies the means and will often take more disagreement with those with different means to the same end than a different end. There is a line between seeking the truth and just trying to validate a preconceived point. I think the post in question moved too close to the latter.

Why is it that these discussions make so many people so uneasy?

My experience is that it has become some sort of standard of web etiquette that websites and their members do not discuss others. For some it is out of privacy concerns and wishing to remain anonymous. Others fear losing visitors to another website.

Here I think it raises questions not only about the individuals in question but also the community itself. As @flynnibus was saying earlier, many of these sites and communities are dependent (and I would say in a way encouraging and idolizing) of the obsessive, "no life" fandom. At what point do we become complicit in the system? Better to just view it as all safe than examine one's role in a system that could very well be destructive.
Then there is the issue of whether or not some of these individuals are involved in less than Disney conduct and whether or not Disney has any knowledge of this. But if people do have such knowledge, then they should speak out instead of making allusions and references.

 

[nytimez]

It may be a matter of semantics, but I think it is an important distinction. I do not think the ends always justifies the means and will often take more disagreement with those with different means to the same end than a different end. There is a line between seeking the truth and just trying to validate a preconceived point. I think the post in question moved too close to the latter.

I tend to think that no matter how the question is raised -- even if there is a preconceived point within it -- the answer is far more important. Otherwise, you end up going to the Sarah Palin extreme: Any question you can't answer is dismissed as "gotcha journalism."

Is it always fair? No. But if you're ready with a good answer, it shouldn't matter how the question is asked.

 

[asianway]

Methinks someone is jealous because the proprietor of this site is making real money off it, while someone else isn't ... oh well, maybe they'll get an invite to the December whorefest, although a little blue (not so little actually) bird told me that some whores have recently been blacklisted. Apparently, complaining about your last free junket before the next may be OK when you have Mongello's leverage, but not some smalltimer based in Central Florida.

I actually heard that one of them complained they had to fly into John Wayne instead of LAX...

 

[Kuhio]

"Why is [x] spending so much time with that child?" is different than, "I do not know what technically constitutes an inappropriate relationship with a minor, as its probably different than what a person would consider to be inappropriate, but why is [x] spending so much time with that child?" You keep making it an all or nothing regarding asking questions, when the issue is whether or not the questions are loaded.

So yes, how questions are worded and asked is important.

How a question is asked can be as important as -- if not more important than -- how the question is worded.

Normally, discerning what a question might "really" mean isn't that difficult, because the "how is it asked" is much more obvious; very few questions are posed in a vacuum, where there is no context in which to assess the potential meaning(s) behind the actual wording of the question.

When we communicate with others in person, or watch someone speak, we have many visual cues to indicate what a question may really mean: facial expression, physical gestures, etc. The setting also contributes, as does our knowledge of the person posing the question: Is the question asked as part of a press release? A political debate? Or just a casual chat between friends? A seemingly innocuous question asked by someone with a sneer on her face, or with a sarcastic tone, immediately takes on a meaning other than that suggested by the wording of the question.

In fact, a seemingly complimentary question can be heavily loaded and have precisely the opposite meaning, as in the following question posed during a political debate: "You all do know that my opponent is the most honest, upstanding person in this state, don't you?"

Even questions that appear in written form often have cues to help us ascertain whether the meaning of the question is straightforward or not. For example, if the question is posed in an editorial, where the political slant of the author is well known, then it may well be a loaded question that is meant to suggest something specific.

But message boards are an entirely different creature. Unless a poster is known to have a particular, well-defined point of view or personality (or employs other cues, such as smilies), it's typically difficult to correctly assign a meaning or an intent to a statement or a question beyond what the actual words indicate.

Anyone who's familiar with my posting style would know that my posts generally fall into two categories: very short, or very long. The short ones tend to be jokes (or attempts at jokes), and the long ones are invariably serious analyses of issues in which I address points as objectively as possible. Sure, I'll occasionally throw in a sarcastic comment or two, but using "loaded" questions to make a point isn't my thing: if I feel strongly enough about something, I'll just come out and say it.

That said, not everyone is going to be familiar with my posting style, as I don't post as much as many regulars here. In the absence of any knowledge about the personality of the person asking a question, or other cues based on context, how the question is worded becomes much more important.

And here, I'd think that the vast majority of people reading a question that's set off with a disclaimer ("I don't know whether..., but...") would be far less likely to consider it a loaded question than the same question without a disclaimer, assuming that the question itself is concerned with an act or situation about which one could make some sort of judgment.

Employed in this context, a disclaimer explicitly says, "I'm telling you upfront that I do not have precise knowledge of this, so I could be mistaken. Take the question that follows with that in mind." It also implicitly invites anyone who does have more specific knowledge of the subject matter to answer the question, as well as correct the person asking the question if need be.

But, of course, there's another factor: the person reading the question, and what he or she brings in terms of life experiences and personality. If someone is involved in, say, politics -- or is just naturally cynical -- then I suppose it's more likely that the person will read a question as being loaded or even as an "accusation" or "attack" when it's obviously nothing of the sort.

As an aside, on a venue such as an online message board where commentary from disparate individuals is added sequentially, sometimes it's hard to prevent what others say from affecting one's own views of a statement or question. If one sees a comment forcefully characterized as "accusatory" or even "damning" by someone who seems to have an absolute conviction in his opinion, there may be more of a tendency to view the comment in light of those sentiments when re-visiting it some time later. (Not saying that anyone's views here were so changed, just that it's something I've noticed about message boards and the comment fields of online articles.)

 

[Mouse Detective]

Gosh I miss JT.
Whatever happened to that misguided soul?