Al Lutz nails apologists ...

Discussion in 'Walt Disney World News, Rumors and General Disc' started by See Post, Oct 9, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Random Thread
  1. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Witches of Morva

    ORDDU: Seems to be, Spirit. And, for the record, jonvn, you haven't been able to satisfy those of us in Morva with the kind of answers YOU'RE giving out as to why you believe what you believe. It all comes across like emotional rantings that can't possibly be dealt with. A witch has to wonder if the only way to satisfy you is to have Mr. Lutz burned at the stake--literally. You're not doing your heart or health any good by reacting the way you do. But, then, you're certainly free to think however you prefer. Just remember that the rest of us have that same freedom.
     
  2. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By jonvn

    "hile accusing anyone who says anything good about the man of being mindless minions."

    No, that is not correct. I do not do that.

    "But instead of discussing what Al writes,"

    I have.

    And yes, there has been a lot of posts, because people keep talking to me about it, for one thing. That accounts for most of it.

    "I just know there are some people who work for Disney that are scumbags "

    Are they holding themselves out to be public figures?

    "you haven't been able to satisfy those of us in Morva with the kind of answers YOU'RE giving out as to why you believe what you believe"

    I'm tired of going over it. And when I do start to talk about some things, then I get told to GET OVER IT and WHO CARES, and all that. So there is little point in bothering. Suffice it to say I have my reasons. If you want to hear them, you can send me email, and I'm sure it will mean very little to you.

    "the only way to satisfy you is to have Mr. Lutz burned at the stake--literally. "

    Of course that is ridiculous. But I find calling for people to be fired, and calling everyone who disagrees with him a DOM to be extremely inappropriate for him to do. And I'm going to say so.

    "the rest of us have that same freedom."

    I don't care what you think or if you like me or not. If you have an opinion, feel free to express it. And I will express mine. However, this does not mean you get to engage in name calling towards me, or others who you also don't like. I don't do that to other people. You will hear me finally say something after a string of verbal assaults probably, but that's nothing I ever originate.

    You can ask me why I think a certain way, you can say that I am misinformed, or whatever, but the only thing you are going to do by calling me names is to make yourself upset. You don't like me? Fine. I am not losing sleep over your opinion of me.

    I am not upset. It's not affecting my health. I've been doing this a very long time, and it simply does not matter. I say what my opinion is, period.

    This whole go round started when I said in another topic that I didn't like what Al said. For that I was attacked personally. And continue to be attacked personally. I think he's not a very good person, no, I don't. But that's not anyone's business. I'll say that if you ask me about it, because I'm honest and I will not lie. If I feel a certain way, I will state it.

    You want to talk to me about this, feel free, you can send me email. jonvn@nadelberg.com. If you don't, that's fine, too. It really does not matter to me because, again, I don't know you, never will know you, and will not talk to you outside of this.

    You do whatever you want to do, but if you think you are going to stop someone from doing something you don't like by calling them names, you really need a lesson in basic psychology.

    So if Al wants to post nice things, fine. If he posts junk that is nasty, fine. I have no reason to not talk about it, and state my opinions on it.

    Now again, you have a choice. You can be a man (or woman) about things and go on your way, or you can talk to me like a human being, or you can continue behaving like you have, the latter for which I have zero respect.

    I have no problems with you doing anything, and your relationship with me is wholly dependent upon YOUR behavior towards me. And if you don't care about that, that's all well and good, too. But I am not going to sit and listen to you being abusive for no reason other than I don't like what someone else has said.
     
  3. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By vbdad55

    Yikes, first I watch a South Park episode where I watch Charlie Brown get blown up by terrorists - then this thread literally explodes....

    and I thought W/E was whacked --

    my head is spinning from some of the revelations I have read here...once I digest it maybe I can comment.

    DAR - you seem to have been appointed judge at one point here - what's your verdict ?
     
  4. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By jonvn

    OK, are we all happy now?

    Hope so, and we can drop this subject, because there are other things to talk about.

    And if you want to talk to me about them, witches, I'll be more than happy to do that with you.
     
  5. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By DAR

    I just wanted to know who this guy was I've seen his name and much like Jim Hill people either get him or they don't.
     
  6. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

    "hile accusing anyone who says anything good about the man of being mindless minions."

    <<No, that is not correct. I do not do that.>>

    You do talk about the mindless people (in your opinion) who follow him along like a cult thing.

    "But instead of discussing what Al writes,"

    <<I have. >>

    Not that much. You readily admit you haven't read him lately because you believe he is so negative. He has been for the most part positive since at least 2005 if not earlier.

    <<And yes, there has been a lot of posts, because people keep talking to me about it, for one thing. That accounts for most of it.>>

    Don't you get tired? I mean ... you do realize you aren't getting this time back at the end of your life, right? ;-)

    "I just know there are some people who work for Disney that are scumbags "

    <<Are they holding themselves out to be public figures?>>

    I don't know if I'd phrase it that way anymore than Al does.

    But this is a public entertainment company and most of the execs are the public face. At EPCOT's 25th ceremony, for example, the 'official voice' of Disney came from WDW Sr. VP of Ops Erin Wallace and EPCOT VP Jim MacPhee.

    They are also frequently quoted in the mainstream media.

    They absolutely are fair game.

    And, for the record, I don't know them personally although I've met them both.

    Also, Erin basically runs the entire WDW Resort on a daily basis, so she is absolutely 'out there' if someone wants to criticize something about the resort.

    But, again, I wouldn't attack her personally for anything. Just like I don't believe Al should be attacked personally.

    If you have issues with him, take them up with him. We all get that you think he is an awful human being. I think I got that like 1,076 posts ago!
     
  7. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Inspector 57

    <<But Mr. Lutz merely reports what he has heard from sources whom he trusts. It should always be understood--at the outset--that his reports are merely rumors or speculation that is fed to him by others... It's all done in fun and shouldn't be taken as seriously as some seem to want to.>>

    No, Witches, that's absolutely not true. You're glossing over things in an (admirable, perhaps) attempt to defend your personal friend.

    It's NOT all "done in fun." Al doesn't just report, he adds his own perspective. And in his commentary, he says viscious, personal, cruel things about Disney staffers. AND he belittles those who disagree with him.

    <<It's all done in fun and shouldn't be taken as seriously as some seem to want to.>>

    First of all, I personally don't agree that gleeful attempts to publicly humiliate a Disney management person are something done "in fun." Secondly, I would bet that Al would not describe his own website as an inconsequential, fluffy blog -- I think he sees it as something of substance and importance. Thus, thirdly, it is disingenious to try to discredit people who respond critically to Al by saying that they are "taking things too seriously."

    Al makes venomous statements, drops slanderous innuendo, and, in a mean way, discredits those who question him.

    And yet, somehow, when another poster points any of this out, that poster is branded by yourself and other Al supporters as the "negative" one.


    As I indicated in my first post on this thread, I find the same phenomenon with Spirit of 74. He posts mean-spirited comments, he takes general swipes at Disney employees, he admittedly allows his intensely negative feelings about certain management teams to color his reporting on their respective Parks. And when any of us question that, we are brushed off. If we persist in our honest questioning, we are painted to be hostile, mentally unhealthy, "taking things too seriously," or worse. Not only by him, but -- in your case -- by posters who want to support a personal friend.


    Denying the obvious truth that Al or Spirit take nasty swipes at Disney management is a classic (invalid) defense technique. Discrediting -- with increasingly personal and hostile attacks -- those who question is a classic invalid defense technique. Seeking to present Al and Spirit as Martyrs For The Disney Cause because others question them is... well, maybe not classic, but certainly an inventive defense mechanism. Threatening repeatedly to close this thread because actual dialogue is happening is a (sad) defense mechanism.


    It's time for Al and Spirit -- and their personal friends -- to accept that when they put columns and posts out there, those columns and posts are absolutely fair game to reactions. And time for them to have the maturity to respond to the reactions with content, not defenses or character assasinations against those who dared to question.
     
  8. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Mr X

    Wouldn't it be interesting if Disney has been monitoring the guy all this time and are just waiting for enough leverage to sue him into bankruptcy?

    Don't think it can't happen. There's a website called "MortgageImplosion" that is being sued viciously by one of the companies they blogged about.
     
  9. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

    <<As I indicated in my first post on this thread, I find the same phenomenon with Spirit of 74.>>

    Yes. You can't stop that hardon for me. Really. Do you have any other purpose here other than to take shots?

    <<He posts mean-spirited comments, he takes general swipes at Disney employees, he admittedly allows his intensely negative feelings about certain management teams to color his reporting on their respective Parks.>>

    That's a bold-faced LIE! And I am not 'reporting' ... I am posting on a web site.

    If a park is filthy. I say it. If a park isn't, I say that. Whether I like the management or not. I don't like Phil Holmes. Not due to anything personally, but because the MK is a lot worse place under his leadership than it was before he took over. But the park had many improvements I noticed, including being much cleaner than this summer, and I posted it.

    I still think Phil should lose his job. He wouldn't have it today if someone like Dick Nunis was in charge, but that doesn't matter.

    <<And when any of us question that, we are brushed off. If we persist in our honest questioning, we are painted to be hostile, mentally unhealthy, "taking things too seriously," or worse.>>

    Yeah. Again, another post about me. Yet you don't have an online obsession. I have no problem with anyone debating me or questioning me. I have a problem with YOU making ME the subject of posts.

    <<Denying the obvious truth that Al or Spirit take nasty swipes at Disney management is a classic (invalid) defense technique. Discrediting -- with increasingly personal and hostile attacks -- those who question is a classic invalid defense technique. Seeking to present Al and Spirit as Martyrs For The Disney Cause because others question them is... well, maybe not classic, but certainly an inventive defense mechanism. Threatening repeatedly to close this thread because actual dialogue is happening is a (sad) defense mechanism.>>

    I'll never have them close a thread EVER unless someone puts personal information about me, my family or friends online. That is overstepping.

    Again, though, don't Community Standards forbid attacking a poster instead of his/her ideas? I guess they don't count when the target is myself ... or Al Lutz.

    But I'd again love to know your feelings and opinions about WDW. You don't seem to have any. Do you even like Disney?


    <<It's time for Al and Spirit -- and their personal friends -- to accept that when they put columns and posts out there, those columns and posts are absolutely fair game to reactions.>>

    Yes, so why don't you actually ever respond to a post of mine? It's just easier to sit back and play the part of the victim, isn't it?

    <<And time for them to have the maturity to respond to the reactions with content, not defenses or character assasinations against those who dared to question.>>

    Pot. Kettle. Black.
     
  10. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

    <<Wouldn't it be interesting if Disney has been monitoring the guy all this time and are just waiting for enough leverage to sue him into bankruptcy?>>

    Disney monitors everything Al writes. And not just at the low levels. Burbank does.

    And, not that Disney ever would, but bringing legal action him would not be a wise thing to do. Just think of the bad PR the company would get. And what exactly is he doing that is somehow illegal?
     
  11. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Mr X

    Never said anything was illegal, just they'd have grounds if he slandered one of their staff members without proof (I'm not saying he has, I'm just saying "if").

    You can't always hide behind "sources say", or "rumor has it", especially since he is not by any real standards a "journalist".

    As far as if they would, or if it would be bad P.R., it all depends on whether or not he truly has been a "thorn in their side" as some claim (I don't buy it).

    And obviously if this blogger is getting talked about "not just at the low levels" as you claim, then they must also be talking about options as to what to do with him.
     
  12. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Mr X

    Slandering a staff member was just an example, by the way.

    There are plenty of ways that they could point to his (or anyones) blogs which contain negative commentary and claim that the writings represented "material harm" to the company.

    That's exactly what mortgageimplode is going through now.

    And they aren't getting any 1st amendment help, believe me.

    Besides, if they really wanted to shut him up AND avoid negative publicity, all they'd have to do is THREATEN to sue...the costs of a defense alone would scare the crap out of someone. Then Disney simply needs to indicate that they will not proceed with the lawsuit as long as he stops blogging about Disney and agrees not to discuss the arrangement.

    Trust me, corporations have PLENTY of ammunition when it comes to individuals that cause them concern.

    MY point is, he's obviously not important to them for the very fact that he IS still blogging about the company after all these years. And as far as I know, he hasn't mentioned being warned to stop by the company.

    So, this talk about him being monitored and discussed "at high levels" is something I really don't buy into.
     
  13. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

    <<As far as if they would, or if it would be bad P.R., it all depends on whether or not he truly has been a "thorn in their side" as some claim (I don't buy it).>>

    You don't have to, but I know for a fact it is true. Maybe not to the degree he's like, but he's caused consternation at Disney for a decade.

    <<And obviously if this blogger is getting talked about "not just at the low levels" as you claim, then they must also be talking about options as to what to do with him.>>

    Well, believe it (again) or not, but a friend who is a Disney exec actually asked me how I thought he could be neutralized a few years ago. Not sure he liked my answer, which was 'run the parks like you did 20 years ago.'
     
  14. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

    <<MY point is, he's obviously not important to them for the very fact that he IS still blogging about the company after all these years. And as far as I know, he hasn't mentioned being warned to stop by the company.

    So, this talk about him being monitored and discussed "at high levels" is something I really don't buy into.>>

    A lot of people are blogging about Disney. This site is all about Disney.

    And obviously you can believe what you wish, but the company monitors Al closely. He has been read by Bob Iger. It doesn't get any higher.

    FWIW, the company pays attention to many sites and individuals who have inside information. And that's just smart business.
     
  15. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By cmash95

    ok jumping on the bandwagon here, I have had the pleasure of al's company on two different occasions and each time he has told me things that came to pass. some took more time than others but every single thing he told me eventually happened. the good and the bad. I trust Al as I trust a few others on this board that I also know personally and have yet to be wrong when they say something. i don't always agree with them but I do listen to what they say and then sit back and wait.
     
  16. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Mr X

    **Not sure he liked my answer, which was 'run the parks like you did 20 years ago.'**

    lol. Well, that'd be ideal wouldn't it?

    **Disney exec actually asked me how I thought he could be neutralized a few years ago**

    If he were really so effective in his critisism that he were affecting material harm to the company (costing them money, in other words), as I wrote there's plenty they could do.

    It is a juggling act though, because there are obviously consequenses to going into "battle mode" like that, but believe me if it were a real financial issue for them the WOULD do it. That's the reason Disney vigerously fights against people who sue them instead of just handing out cash.

    In fact, if he were truly a problem (and I suspect your executive friend is probably just wanting to shut him up because he's annoying), there would be a legal OBLIGATION for the company to deal with it...after all, there are shareholders to consider.
     
  17. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Mr X

    Oops...forgot to spell check that one.






    Let me see, where did Doobie put that edit button again...
     
  18. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Spirit of 74

    <<In fact, if he were truly a problem (and I suspect your executive friend is probably just wanting to shut him up because he's annoying), there would be a legal OBLIGATION for the company to deal with it...after all, there are shareholders to consider.>>

    My exec friend was very happy to never be mentioned by Al (or maybe just 1-2 times, I can't recall now).

    I don't believe you can make a statement, though, that Al is actually costing them money. I mean, how do you prove that people aren't going to DCA because he says it sucks? (if anyone actually would take one person's opinion).

    I don't see Al costing them money anymore than people who post things here (myself included). I've never told anyone to not go to WDW (I'd be VERY hypocritical if I did) and if I did, so what?

    And what about positive sites (like our own usually gushing with praise LP)? Should Doobie get a kickback from Jay Rasulo for running a great site and giving Disney tons of free (mostly) positive pub?

    Could an individual sue Al (like Pressler)? Perhaps, but they all know they'd lose far more than they'd win. It would be the giant corporation up against the guy who 'stands for Walt's ideals' ... no way, a company or exec wins that battle.

    But to stop rambling, I tend to agree with you X, Al is more of an annoyance than anything to Disney ... and that's largely because he can point out when something isn't the way it should be and, if he plays it right, wind up in the Times or Register. And that annoys the Mouse a whole lot more!
     
  19. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Inspector 57

    <<I have no problem with anyone debating me or questioning me. I have a problem with YOU making ME the subject of posts.>>

    Well, you can't have it both ways.

    You can welcome debate and questioning. But then, when someone takes you up on it, you can't allege that they are somehow unfairly making you the subject of posts.

    <<I'll never have them close a thread EVER unless someone puts personal information about me, my family or friends online.>>

    But you've threatened twice to have this thread closed unless I stopped responding to your comments. (Classic Spirit revisionistic history.)

    <<Yes, so why don't you actually ever respond to a post of mine?>>

    Ummmmmm... Okay, I honestly don't get this one. You are criticizing me for not responding to your posts. But when I do, I get criticized for "making it all about you." Damned if I do, damned if I don't.

    Whatever, Spirit. I've stated my points here. I'll let you go ahead and get the last word. I trust that thinking LP'ers will understand what I've posted.
     
  20. See Post

    See Post New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2016
    Messages:
    5,319
    Likes Received:
    84
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Originally Posted By Inspector 57

    <<But to stop rambling, I tend to agree with you X, Al is more of an annoyance than anything to Disney ... and that's largely because he can point out when something isn't the way it should be and, if he plays it right, wind up in the Times or Register. And that annoys the Mouse a whole lot more!>>

    LOL!

    Wait a second! I take back whatever I said about having made my points.

    Which is it, Spirit?

    (1) That Disney-fan websites have big influence on Disney decisions -- such as resulting in Superstar Limo getting shut down -- as you posted earlier in this thread, or...

    (2) <<I mean, how do you prove that people aren't going to DCA because he says it sucks? (if anyone actually would take one person's opinion).>>

    Ummmmm...

    1) On-line opinion gets attaction shut down.
    2) On-line websites have no effect. Nobody takes one person's opinion.

    Discuss amongst yourself.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page