WDW Spirited Quickees

[wannab@dis]

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.

You're right. There is a subjective opinion involved. I believe it crossed the line many times. The reason for me... specific people were named with the sole objective of hurting those people.

 

[jmb2676]

But wouldn't someone WANT to know if a glowing review of something may have been influenced by a free trip or special access?

 

[wannab@dis]

But wouldn't someone WANT to know if a glowing review of something may have been influenced by a free trip or special access?

I keep seeing these types of statements, but I really just don't understand the issue. I look at any review at any fan site as probably being influenced by whoever made the product being reviewed. I see reviews of camcorders and figure they received the camcorder free so they could do the review. Similarly I see a review at many of the WDW fan sites being made after they were given access and possibly a free night so they could be there to do the review. I have no problem with that, but maybe because it's what I expect. I look a the whole review, look at the specifics, look at the pictures and draw my own conclusions. I see reviews here that may be positive about a restaurant and then look at the menu and don't think I would like it even though it was a glowing review. Whether they got the meal free or not has little bearing on my assessment.

Again, I think some people want to focus on perks because they have an agenda, not because they care about the actual review. It's about WHO is making the review, not the product being reviewed.

 

[flynnibus]

Well, if the mods allow you to call someone "ignorant," then I guess other posts will be allowed to stay as well...

Ignorant isn't a insult - it's a description of someone's knowledge in a subject/area. You should only take offense to it if you were to take offense to someone saying 'you don't know..'

"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." - Confucious

 

[flynnibus]

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.

There is a way to address that with the authorities. And true or not - that doesn't give you immunity to go after attacking other aspects of a person's life or business. You may think it's 'deserving' - but a judge won't.

 

[lazyboy97o]

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?

Gathering information sounds responsible to me. I guess @WDW1974 could just try to use information to privately blackmail some of these people, but since he has been so vocal and open about his dislike of this situation, I see research gathering. An accumulation of data that will support specific accusations if and when troubling information is found which will ensure the accusation is taken seriously. I think it's a rather basic means of investigation.

Who has been outed? Who's name has been used by a person who, amongst the Disney fan community, does not himself use his own name?

 

[ChrisM]

Oh sweet 8 pound 8 ounce baby Jesus, someone please lock this thread.

 

[nytimez]

You're right. There is a subjective opinion involved. I believe it crossed the line many times. The reason for me... specific people were named with the sole objective of hurting those people.

I think you were right earlier when you said neither your nor I would make decisions based on a Disney fan site. But I think plenty of people do -- and that's why I think it's legit to mention who may be receiving Disney perks and favors.

The reason I can't dismiss some of the accusations made in this thread is because I'm fairly well connected in the world of the mainstream media and I know the perks many of the people I know -- including friends -- have received, and they go far beyond all-expenses-paid junkets.

In some cases, the mainstream media will mention when something has been paid for. In many cases, they will not. I think this is a problem whether it's a major news organization or a popular blogger or podcaster. And personally, I would like to see more policing of this. This thread doesn't represent the ideal way to go about doing it, but at least it's a step toward doing it.

 

[wannab@dis]

Gathering information sounds responsible to me. I guess @WDW1974 could just try to use information to privately blackmail some of these people, but since he has been so vocal and open about his dislike of this situation, I see research gathering. An accumulation of data that will support specific accusations if and when troubling information is found which will ensure the accusation is taken seriously. I think it's a rather basic means of investigation.

Who has been outed? Who's name has been used by a person who, amongst the Disney fan community, does not himself use his own name?

I think you were right earlier when you said neither your nor I would make decisions based on a Disney fan site. But I think plenty of people do -- and that's why I think it's legit to mention who may be receiving Disney perks and favors.

The reason I can't dismiss some of the accusations made in this thread is because I'm fairly well connected in the world of the mainstream media and I know the perks many of the people I know -- including friends -- have received, and they go far beyond all-expenses-paid junkets.

In some cases, the mainstream media will mention when something has been paid for. In many cases, they will not. I think this is a problem whether it's a major news organization or a popular blogger or podcaster. And personally, I would like to see more policing of this. This thread doesn't represent the ideal way to go about doing it, but at least it's a step toward doing it.

Both of these posts are similar so I'm going to reply to them together. I truly understand that some find the idea of a "paid" review being an issue. I have no problem with stating you do not like that situation.

But who made us judge and jury? Who made '74 the disney community investigator where he thinks he can build some McCarthy style file? I have a real problem with that. If you (or '74) thinks there's a problem, then notify the authorities and let them take care of ethical and illegal activities. It's not up to forum posters to make vague accusations. This isn't about protecting some naive vacationer from a glowing review, it appears to me to be about anonymously trying to hurt people they don't like. I think that's fairly clear.

 

[Bolna]

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.

So, are you an expert on defamation laws? It seems really strange that the less stringent laws in the UK (whether we are now talking about England and Wales or Scotland as they have quite different legal systems) should be the case for the so called "libel tourism" which even caused a law to be put into force in the US in 2010 called the SPEECH Act to make foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the the US - mainly to prevent forum shopping to England (i.e. making the case in England instead of the US).

 

[wannab@dis]

So, are you an expert on defamation laws? It seems really strange that the less stringent laws in the UK (whether we are now talking about England and Wales or Scotland as they have quite different legal systems) should be the case for the so called "libel tourism" which even caused a law to be put into force in the US in 2010 called the SPEECH Act to make foreign libel judgements unenforceable in the the US - mainly to prevent forum shopping to England (i.e. making the case in England instead of the US).

Never said I was an expert. I only stated that UK (England, if you will) has less stringent defamation laws. And, it appears that was the case as that act appears to help shield people from being sued in England since it was easier to win a defamation lawsuit there. Thanks for backing up my statement as being true.

 

[nytimez]

If you (or '74) thinks there's a problem, then notify the authorities and let them take care of ethical and illegal activities.

You really can't be suggesting that the only information we should receive and consider should be passed through the authorities first, do you?

What's interesting here is the example you cite, McCarthyism, was actually an example of a legal process unfolding, and being carried out by authorities. Maybe we shouldn't always trust the "authorities" on these things after all?

 

[xdan0920]

@wannab@dis Quick question for you...

The people being named here, are public figures. They have delibritaly become public figures. They are embracing their "fame" and using it for profit.

So, my question is this. Are you against all public figures, athletes, tv stars, movie stars, musicians, ect... being subjected to public discussion? Can I come here and say something bad about, say, Ray Lewis? or Taylor Swift? Or Michael VIck? Or is it your belief that you have to reach a certain level of fame before it becomes ok to be discussed by name, publicly?

 

[TalkingHead]

The bloggers are more offensive because they're covering Disney's lazy, flabby a##.

You put your name into the blogosphere and market your name as a "brand," then you open yourself up to these kinds of discussions.

 

[wdwfan22]

But wouldn't someone WANT to know if a glowing review of something may have been influenced by a free trip or special access?

Reviews have always been influenced by freebies it's nothing new. The only thing that has changed is disney fansites and podcasters are now included as members of the media. Whether you agree with this or not Disney is free to make there own decisions. They also have a better chance of getting a fan site to cover its news than main stream media.

 

[WDW1974]

OK, the stupidty and ignorance is getting over the top, but that sorta happens when wannabe joins a thread of mine. Yes, I will be taking it up with the mods. No, they likely won't do anything because apparently it is fine to discuss me and my motivations as if I were some ... some ... I don't know .. internet celebrity.

There's no vagueness about what some have termed accusations. They are not accusations. I am stating facts. No one is vetting these individuals in Social Media who are making money off of Disney and its IP and, most importantly, in cases like Lou Mongello's presenting themselves as employees of TWDC or in an officially sanctioned capacity when their websites do NOT reflect this.

Your line of thinking is both simplistic and troubling. It is akin to being a Tom Hanks fan. You go to a theater to see his movies and somehow you are now on par with the man. You receieve the same level of scrutiny, you are exposed to the same liabilities that come with being a famous actor/celebrity. When I go to WDW, I am a paying guest. As I write here, on this forum, I am a fan of that product. Just as the person is a fan of Tom Hanks. One and the same?

Because that's the logic, and I use that term loosely, that you place out on this forum as a way of criticizing anyone who dares to be critical of any of the Disney Social Media parasites out there or any Disney executives or Imagineers for that matter.

Can we all stop and remember that these people CRAVE the spotlight and opt to put themselves in it?
What kind of fantasy world are certain posters here living in where they believe that a Lou Mongello, a Ricky Brigante, a Tom Corless, a Jeff Lange, an Al Lutz, a Kevin Yee, a Meg Crofton, a Phil Holmes, a Danny Cockerell, a Tony Baxter, a Kathy Mangum etc etc etc don't crave attention. And the first people mentioned, the Disney Lifestlyers, went out seeking this very attention and they continue to seek it.

They are open to criticism, to questioning (yes, even it hurts their businesses -- and, yes, every ONE of them should have been thoroughly vetted by the company ... look what McD's does for a mimium wage job). Do you really again have any idea what's at stake here for TWDC?

Or are you just concerned with poor Loveable Lou's feelings? Oh, and trying to BULLY Steve into shutting the thread down? Becauge you know who's paying attention to it?

This is the reason why fan sites exist. To discuss major topics in the Disney Fan Community. And, whether you like it or not (or like me or Kuhio or lazyboy or anyone else discussing this) it is one of the most important topics going. And timely too with another media event at WDW in a little over five weeks.

I find it curious that Disney has started blacklisting some of these folks from their events, at the same time people here (not many to be sure) are worrying about Lou's business. If he's running an up and up business, then he has no worries.

Now, wannabe, back off on personally making me the subject, ignorantly claiming to know the laws here and in the UK, and asking other members for their personal information. Your posts are, as usual, outlandish and completely misplaced.

To any who may be concerned about this, rest assured, while I may not articulate it in my responses I am very much aware of the legal ground on which I stand. ROCK. SOLID.

 

[wannab@dis]

@wannab@dis Quick question for you...

The people being named here, are public figures. They have delibritaly become public figures. They are embracing their "fame" and using it for profit.

So, my question is this. Are you against all public figures, athletes, tv stars, movie stars, musicians, ect... being subjected to public discussion? Can I come here and say something bad about, say, Ray Lewis? or Taylor Swift? Or Michael VIck? Or is it your belief that you have to reach a certain level of fame before it becomes ok to be discussed by name, publicly?

I really don't know if you're being honest with your question or simply trying to deflect the core issue. I have a feeling it's deflecting, but I'll assume it's not.

I think you can tell the difference in the levels of "say something bad" in the context of this thread. Or, maybe you haven't read the whole thread. There's a big difference from what has been said in this thread to saying "_____ should tell his readers that he got a night free." I don't really have a problem with that, even though some do that out of malice. We all know that. Overall, I don't agree the perk issue is a huge deal as I make a simple assumption that any review may have been influenced when it was written and I think most people do.

But some have went way beyond posting about perks and into the realm of vague accusations of unethical and illegal activity. I don't think that has any place on this forum. If someone wants to make that type of accusation, do it on their own website or on some public site like Facebook or Twitter. It seems some have made it their "calling" to try and find and post anything they can that can financially hurt others they don't like - many times without facts, just with innuendo. It's obvious when it happens and I think most here are intelligent enough to see the difference!

 

[bubbles1812]

I really don't know if you're being honest with your question or simply trying to deflect the core issue. I have a feeling it's deflecting, but I'll assume it's not.

I think you can tell the difference in the levels of "say something bad" in the context of this thread. Or, maybe you haven't read the whole thread. There's a big difference from what has been said in this thread to saying "_____ should tell his readers that he got a night free." I don't really have a problem with that, even though some do that out of malice. We all know that. Overall, I don't agree the perk issue is a huge deal as I make a simple assumption that any review may have been influenced when it was written and I think most people do.

But some have went way beyond posting about perks and into the realm of vague accusations of unethical and illegal activity. I don't think that has any place on this forum. If someone wants to make that type of accusation, do it on their own website or on some public site like Facebook or Twitter. It seems some have made it their "calling" to try and find and post anything they can that can financially hurt others they don't like - many times without facts, just with innuendo. It's obvious when it happens and I think most here are intelligent enough to see the difference!

You really do make some nonsensical posts... I haven't seen anyone on here try to post things to deliberately hurt others financially. Please cite some examples for us where there has been a "shady" post like that. If its publically available info (regardless of whether its obscure or not), I'd say that's fair game for posting and discussion...because again its publically available info. Show me something different than that because I haven't seen anything like that. So no, I don't think it's obvious when it happens nor am I guessing is the majority of the forum...at least everyone not looking for a conspiracy...of which you seem to be one...I'll get a tinfoil hat for you, I promise.

I assume your nonsensical post to what 74' wrote is coming in 3...2...1...

 

[wannab@dis]

OK, the stupidty and ignorance is getting over the top, but that sorta happens when wannabe joins a thread of mine. Yes, I will be taking it up with the mods. No, they likely won't do anything because apparently it is fine to discuss me and my motivations as if I were some ... some ... I don't know .. internet celebrity.

Take it up. I have no problem with that.

There's no vagueness about what some have termed accusations. They are not accusations. I am stating facts. No one is vetting these individuals in Social Media who are making money off of Disney and its IP and, most importantly, in cases like Lou Mongello's presenting themselves as employees of TWDC or in an officially sanctioned capacity when their websites do NOT reflect this.

So you work on behalf of Disney now? Let them take care of any HR issues. You have no say in that, but you are trying to cause harm to people. You have an agenda and it's clear for anyone that doesn't fall over themselves to suck up to you.

Because that's the logic, and I use that term loosely, that you place out on this forum as a way of criticizing anyone who dares to be critical of any of the Disney Social Media parasites out there or any Disney executives or Imagineers for that matter.

You stopped being critical a long time ago and have switched gears to take on people personally. It's obvious and you know it. You have made it clear for people to look for anything and send information to you. You make accusations, you quote accusations and you push those accusations. You know most are vague innuendo, but you encourage it to continue. You similarly make the claims of illegal behaviors, you drop the little pedophile quips and you strive to paint people you don't like in some nasty caricature. Be a man and own up to what you post. Make those same posts and put your name on it.

Can we all stop and remember that these people CRAVE the spotlight and opt to put themselves in it?
What kind of fantasy world are certain posters here living in where they believe that a Lou Mongello, a Ricky Brigante, a Tom Corless, a Jeff Lange, an Al Lutz, a Kevin Yee, a Meg Crofton, a Phil Holmes, a Danny Cockerell, a Tony Baxter, a Kathy Mangum etc etc etc don't crave attention. And the first people mentioned, the Disney Lifestlyers, went out seeking this very attention and they continue to seek it.

Seeking attention is one thing, asking for some anonymous poster with an agenda to make accusations is another.

They are open to criticism, to questioning (yes, even it hurts their businesses -- and, yes, every ONE of them should have been thoroughly vetted by the company ... look what McD's does for a mimium wage job). Do you really again have any idea what's at stake here for TWDC?

Or are you just concerned with poor Loveable Lou's feelings? Oh, and trying to BULLY Steve into shutting the thread down? Becauge you know who's paying attention to it?

This is the reason why fan sites exist. To discuss major topics in the Disney Fan Community. And, whether you like it or not (or like me or Kuhio or lazyboy or anyone else discussing this) it is one of the most important topics going. And timely too with another media event at WDW in a little over five weeks.

I find it curious that Disney has started blacklisting some of these folks from their events, at the same time people here (not many to be sure) are worrying about Lou's business. If he's running an up and up business, then he has no worries.

You're not the one to question them and this is not the right place to question anyone legally. I don't care about Lou, I don't read or watch or listen to him. I would make the same statements no matter who you're talking about.

Now, wannabe, back off on personally making me the subject, ignorantly claiming to know the laws here and in the UK, and asking other members for their personal information. Your posts are, as usual, outlandish and completely misplaced.

Wow, pot, kettle, black. I have never asked about anyone's personal information. But you have done so in this thread and you have asked people to look more and send you stuff.

To any who may be concerned about this, rest assured, while I may not articulate it in my responses I am very much aware of the legal ground on which I stand. ROCK. SOLID.

Oh, so you know what you're doing is pushing the limits. Enough said.

 

[Captain Chaos]

And the nonsense continues.. The idiots continue to run the asylum here... And the same idiots troll 74's posts because they have some fetish for him.... Rather pathetic really....