WDW Spirited Quickees

[wannab@dis]

Yup, really went out of your way there....

And the point hasn't changed. You enjoy flinging your own version of b#ll#cks around here as much as anyone else. Trying to bring the mods into it doesn't change anything.

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You don't have the backbone to call out '74 and others for their behavior but you'll jump in when I do. I don't fling anything... I post facts and I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Just because others are afraid to stand up against the nasty behavior of a few doesn't mean I will be. The level of defamation, condescension and personal attacks by a '74 and his followers is growing daily because the mods allow it to stand. Why? I don't know. But, I'm sure my post will be deleted or edited.

 

[nytimez]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You don't have the backbone to call out '74 and others for their behavior but you'll jump in when I do. I don't fling anything... I post facts and I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Just because others are afraid to stand up against the nasty behavior of a few doesn't mean I will be. The level of defamation, condescension and personal attacks by a '74 and his followers is growing daily because the mods allow it to stand. Why? I don't know. But, I'm sure my post will be deleted or edited.

Just trying to understand where you're coming from here... Are you saying the behaviors mentioned by '74 and others in this thread -- in particular, the special treatment bloggers and media receive at WDW -- doesn't happen? Or that it does happen, but isn't something worth discussion?

 

[Kuhio]

That's exactly what I'm talking about. You don't have the backbone to call out '74 and others for their behavior but you'll jump in when I do. I don't fling anything... I post facts and I'm not afraid to call a spade a spade.

Just because others are afraid to stand up against the nasty behavior of a few doesn't mean I will be. The level of defamation, condescension and personal attacks by a '74 and his followers is growing daily because the mods allow it to stand. Why? I don't know. But, I'm sure my post will be deleted or edited.

The fact that you characterize others as engaging in "nasty behavior" and "personal attacks" demonstrates only that you lack both self-awareness and any sense of irony.

 

[wannab@dis]

Just trying to understand where you're coming from here... Are you saying the behaviors mentioned by '74 and others in this thread -- in particular, the special treatment bloggers and media receive at WDW -- doesn't happen? Or that it does happen, but isn't something worth discussion?

Nice attempt at a strawman, but I'll bite.

I really don't care what perks someone gets at WDW. If they are invited to an event so they will market for Disney, then more power to them. I'm not jealous of their perks, but it's more than apparent that others are. As for the charges of anything improper, I'm sure Disney will protect themselves and it's up to them to make that decision... not anyone here.

I find it more reprehensible to see the defamation of people by name at this forum by anonymous posters. I've seen '74 say several times that he doesn't like it when someone tries to find out who he is, but he will go on a tirade trying to get people to search and find information about others. Pure hypocrisy.

For those hoping Disney takes legal action against some, they may want to be careful, as legal actions could also be taken against several here. That opens up an issue for Steve as this forum is based in the UK and their defamation rules are a lot different and less stringent than the US.

I have no problem with open ended statements of jealously about someone else getting perks, but they should not mention anyone by name. A simple statement of "I don't think Disney should allow podcasters to interview people on their property" or "I don't like it that some bloggers get free nights and tickets so they will write a review" are perfectly fine. But it's never that way -- some simply defame others by name in an attempt to hurt them. If you want to do that, go for it. Use Twitter, Facebook, the blogger's website, or, gasp, your own website. But don't bring that trash here, don't jeopardize this forum's reputation or its owners.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Just trying to understand where you're coming from here... Are you saying the behaviors mentioned by '74 and others in this thread -- in particular, the special treatment bloggers and media receive at WDW -- doesn't happen? Or that it does happen, but isn't something worth discussion?

I think WDW1974 could save a bus full of cute orphans and bunnies and he'd still take some issue with it.

 

[nytimez]

Nice attempt at a strawman, but I'll bite.

I really don't care what perks someone gets at WDW. If they are invited to an event so they will market for Disney, then more power to them. I'm not jealous of their perks, but it's more than apparent that others are. As for the charges of anything improper, I'm sure Disney will protect themselves and it's up to them to make that decision... not anyone here.

I find it more reprehensible to see the defamation of people by name at this forum by anonymous posters. I've seen '74 say several times that he doesn't like it when someone tries to find out who he is, but he will go on a tirade trying to get people to search and find information about others. Pure hypocrisy.

For those hoping Disney takes legal action against some, they may want to be careful, as legal actions could also be taken against several here. That opens up an issue for Steve as this forum is based in the UK and their defamation rules are a lot different and less stringent than the US.

I have no problem with open ended statements of jealously about someone else getting perks, but they should not mention anyone by name. A simple statement of "I don't think Disney should allow podcasters to interview people on their property" or "I don't like it that some bloggers get free nights and tickets so they will write a review" are perfectly fine. But it's never that way -- some simply defame others by name in an attempt to hurt them. If you want to do that, go for it. Use Twitter, Facebook, the blogger's website, or, gasp, your own website. But don't bring that trash here, don't jeopardize this forum's reputation or its owners.

How is that a strawman? That's the very heart of this discussion, as I see it and it has nothing to do with jealousy over perks.

People on this forum and in other places make decisions worth thousands of dollars based on the reviews and advice on these Web sites. It's a huge problem if the people on those sites claiming to be unbiased Disney experts are in fact collecting perks and other benefits from the company.

 

[lazyboy97o]

How is that a strawman? That's the very heart of this discussion, as I see it and it has nothing to do with jealousy over perks.

People on this forum and in other places make decisions worth thousands of dollars based on the reviews and advice on these Web sites. It's a huge problem if the people on those sites claiming to be unbiased Disney experts are in fact collecting perks and other benefits from the company.

And if they do not desire to be referenced by name, then they are not obligated to use their name, but they do use their name.

 

[wannab@dis]

The fact that you characterize others as engaging in "nasty behavior" and "personal attacks" demonstrates only that you lack both self-awareness and any sense of irony.

I'm not the one that went looking through websites and made vague accusations of unethical behavior by specifically named people. I'm fully aware of my posts, but I'm not out there trying to find out who you are, where you live, your occupation and then accusing you of unethical and illegal behavior. If you're so sure that what you do is above board, then put your name out there. Take a real stand and quit hiding behind anonymity when defaming others.

 

[wm49rs]

I'm not the one that went looking through websites and made vague accusations of unethical behavior by specifically named people. I'm fully aware of my posts, but I'm not out there trying to find out who you are, where you live, your occupation and then accusing you of unethical and illegal behavior. If you're so sure that what you do is above board, then put your name out there. Take a real stand and quit hiding behind anonymity when defaming others.

Oh, the irony...

I'll alert the mods.

 

[Disneyhead'71]

To be fair, I trust the paid opinion about as much as the unpaid pixie dust addict. It's all a bunch of "OMG!, OMG!, OMG!, I just heard that TDO has recieved new paper napkins and cups, I am booking a flight now, I should be able to Twitpic samples before the fireworks. My life is complete."

 

[wannab@dis]

How is that a strawman? That's the very heart of this discussion, as I see it and it has nothing to do with jealousy over perks.

People on this forum and in other places make decisions worth thousands of dollars based on the reviews and advice on these Web sites. It's a huge problem if the people on those sites claiming to be unbiased Disney experts are in fact collecting perks and other benefits from the company.

Are you kidding me? My post was specifically about the defamation of specific people -- the attempt of some to post veiled accusations of unethical behavior. You turned it around and made it into something about perks. That's a strawman.

The two things can be separated. The problem is several here are making accusations to hurt someone. They're not doing so out of some altruistic manner. They simply want to hurt people they don't agree with.

As for the "unbiased" remark... that's laughable at best. If I want unbiased information about something, I surely do not go to a fan forum or fan blog to get that information. That's ludicrous and I think you know it. Those forums and blogs are there specifically for information about the product from a fan's perspective.

I don't go to "Apple Insider" to get unbiased reporting of Apple products.

 

[wannab@dis]

Oh, the irony...

I'll alert the mods.

That's fine. If you can't see the difference between attacking an anonymous post and posting accusations of illegal activity by name, then there's no discussion to be had with you. I think you see the difference, but you just don't want to admit it.

 

[nytimez]

Are you kidding me? My post was specifically about the defamation of specific people -- the attempt of some to post veiled accusations of unethical behavior. You turned it around and made it into something about perks. That's a strawman.

The two things can be separated. The problem is several here are making accusations to hurt someone. They're not doing so out of some altruistic manner. They simply want to hurt people they don't agree with.

As for the "unbiased" remark... that's laughable at best. If I want unbiased information about something, I surely do not go to a fan forum or fan blog to get that information. That's ludicrous and I think you know it. Those forums and blogs are there specifically for information about the product from a fan's perspective.

I don't go to "Apple Insider" to get unbiased reporting of Apple products.

Seems like you're so blinded by whatever personal issues you have with '74 that you simply can't have a rational discussion.

 

[wm49rs]

That's fine. If you can't see the difference between attacking an anonymous post and posting accusations of illegal activity by name, then there's no discussion to be had with you. I think you see the difference, but you just don't want to admit it.

I can also tell sanctimonious prattle when I read it, but that doesn't mean the moderators are going to stop it simply because I object....

 

[wannab@dis]

Seems like you're so blinded by whatever personal issues you have with '74 that you simply can't have a rational discussion.

No response to what I wrote except a deflection?

There is nothing rational about trying to get people to look up information about someone by name in an attempt to hurt or defame them. I have no personal issues with '74 as I don't know him personally. I don't know his name, his location, his occupation or anything about him. I don't care about him. But he sure doesn't mind dropping names and attacking others by name while doing so anonymously.

Like I said earlier, there's a big difference between "I hate the fact that Disney pays bloggers to write stories" and "I heard ___________ got a free trip to write his pixie dusted review and didn't tell anyone. Can you imagine what would happen if it came out that some blogger has a DUI?" I would think most would see the difference. One is a statement with no names and perfectly acceptable. The other is naming someone then making some vague accusation, possibly, maybe about the persona they just named. [both examples are made up, but based on what has been posted - I did not go back and try to find the specifics]

It's apparent that's what what he and others are doing. It's also obvious they are doing that to hurt the named individuals personally.

 

[nytimez]

No response to what I wrote except a deflection?

There is nothing rational about trying to get people to look up information about someone by name in an attempt to hurt or defame them. I have no personal issues with '74 as I don't know him personally. I don't know his name, his location, his occupation or anything about him. I don't care about him. But he sure doesn't mind dropping names and attacking others by name while doing so anonymously.

Like I said earlier, there's a big difference between "I hate the fact that Disney pays bloggers to write stories" and "I heard ___________ got a free trip to write his pixie dusted review and didn't tell anyone. Can you imagine what would happen if it came out that some blogger has a DUI?" I would think most would see the difference. One is a statement with no names and perfectly acceptable. The other is naming someone then making some vague accusation, possibly, maybe about the persona they just named. [both examples are made up, but based on what has been posted - I did not go back and try to find the specifics]

It's apparent that's what what he and others are doing. It's also obvious they are doing that to hurt the named individuals personally.

No deflection at all. I have nothing to add to what's been said. You don't either, since each of your posts is simply a restatement of what you've already said -- but personally, I'm not that interested in having a circular discussion.

 

[lazyboy97o]

No response to what I wrote except a deflection?

There is nothing rational about trying to get people to look up information about someone by name in an attempt to hurt or defame them. I have no personal issues with '74 as I don't know him personally. I don't know his name, his location, his occupation or anything about him. I don't care about him. But he sure doesn't mind dropping names and attacking others by name while doing so anonymously.

How else should we refer to people who have made them self into sort of Disney fan celebrities and use their own name? It's not like people are hunting down the names of people using screen names and pseudonyms. Also, while I have been critical of how Kuhio framed his questions, his looking was all websites that Mongello himself links to and discusses on his Disney website. If he did not want people in the Disney community to know these aspects of his life, then he should not mention them and provide links. If oen of these bloggers is involved in unDisney behavior, yes, it should be known because these people are being utilized as ersatz marketing personelle for Disney and I imagine we would want to know if somebody on Disney's payroll was involved in such activities.

 

[wannab@dis]

No deflection at all. I have nothing to add to what's been said. You don't either, since each of your posts is simply a restatement of what you've already said -- but personally, I'm not that interested in having a circular discussion.

It's also obvious you do not agree with me. I guess that means you find it OK for posters to make unfounded accusations of unethical or legal behavior of named individuals?

 

[nytimez]

It's also obvious you do not agree with me. I guess that means you find it OK for posters to make unfounded accusations of unethical or legal behavior of named individuals?

I don't think there's a blanket "yes/no" answer to that for all cases. This thread has probably gone right up to the line, but in my opinion it hasn't crossed it.

Your mileage may vary.

 

[wannab@dis]

How else should we refer to people who have made them self into sort of Disney fan celebrities and use their own name? It's not like people are hunting down the names of people using screen names and pseudonyms. Also, while I have been critical of how Kuhio framed his questions, his looking was all websites that Mongello himself links to and discusses on his Disney website. If he did not want people in the Disney community to know these aspects of his life, then he should not mention them and provide links. If oen of these bloggers is involved in unDisney behavior, yes, it should be known because these people are being utilized as ersatz marketing personelle for Disney and I imagine we would want to know if somebody on Disney's payroll was involved in such activities.

Yes, I saw that you also took some to task about the vague accusations. Well, only a couple of specific posters. But you didn't say anything about '74 even though he's made similar accusations and he's pushed for people to go look for other things. I think it's obvious that he's the ringleader in this push to hurt people he doesn't like. He's named executives, bloggers, podcasters, etc. by name. And he's said he's keeping a list of what people get what perks. He's asked people to send him anything they find. You don't have any problems with that? That doesn't sound like something that should be shunned by responsible posters at this forum?

I personally don't like the WDW Fanboys podcast. I don't have a problem with it, just don't care for it. I have no clue if they get perks and I really don't care. I have no problem with people saying they don't like a specific source of information and why they don't like it. But, only if they keep it above board and without accusations. I believe most can see the difference between stating they don't like a source of information and making unfounded accusations or trying to hurt them specifically.