Originally Posted By CMDad <<I really don't care about either very much. I'm more interested in discussing points he and others raise rather than discussing personalities. Your thoughts?>> That would be nice ... and perhaps a first.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip great majority of Disney fans gladly accept crap, that's what we'll all get. That's simple logic.>> So, Great Spirit... what is crap at WDW? I wanna know crap. Not a rose that doesn't smell quite as good as it should. Not a little boofer that some 5-year-old let slip. I wanna know what it is you find about WDW that is crap. I want to know what you think is a pile of steaming stinky poop at WDW. Do I think everything Disney does is great? No. Do I think WDW is everything it could be? No I do not. But it comes closer to what I want than any other product I purchase from any other firm. So Disney has not given me heaven on earth. Oh well. I can deal with it. That doesn't mean that what is there is a pile of steaming stinky poop. So… you made the accusation. Defend it. Tell me what in your mind is CRAP at WDW.
Originally Posted By jonvn "but much of it gets lost in this hatred (and let's be blunt that's what it is) for Al." I don't hate him. I find his comments to be very damaging, and his supporters to be utterly repellent in their behavior. "And while the DoM label may be a bit over the top, the basic point has validity. If the great majority of Disney fans gladly accept crap, that's what we'll all get. That's simple logic." If they accept crap, and that's what they like, that's up to them. Everyone has an opinion as to what is good or not and why. But to then go forth and put a derogatory term to many people in the online community because they don't agree with a certain viewpoint is an empty hostile gesture. It is a behavior he routinely engaged in before he tried to clean up his act. "I think that numerous -- increasingly personal and hostile" Noticed that, have you? Isn't it interesting how that's ok for them to engage in. One says they looked into my history (or whatever) and calls me unsavory. Then drags the name of a friend of mine into it. And they just keep getting nastier. It's a time honored tactic with them. They are simply contemptible. Cult members who when faced with someone being critical of their leader, they respond as viciously as possible. The tell is that I don't even have to say a word to them before they open up an assault on me, or someone who is cricital of Al. "This has been said more and more lately on this thread, and I don't think it's true. " Of course it's true. "jon starts in with the venom-filled rhetoric that people start to show Al some support" I'm sorry that I don't act like an 18th century French fop when I speak about someone who is destroying the Disney online community, but that's how it goes. I see no reason to afford courtesy to either him or his minion. As far as raising issues? This topic is called "Al nails apologists." The very title of this thread contains an insult, and it CROWS about how Al has stuck it to people who don't agree with him. He deserves being called to task, as well as his "supporters" who engage in the same sort of behavior. That is the point that this topic is about. It is unacceptable behavior. That it is defended is disgusting. "I only see Al 'name-calling' execs" By labelling an entire CLASS of people, he did. And you know what else? You don't name call execs, either.
Originally Posted By danyoung >I imagine he meant "not" cleaner than.< Yes, I knew that, bobbelee. I was tweaking the almighty Spirit.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<So… you made the accusation. Defend it. Tell me what in your mind is CRAP at WDW.>> I don't feel like I really have to Trippy. You've known me here for a few years now. I think you realize what I feel is crap. That said, I'll give some example: Parks that aren't as clean or maintained as they once were. Attractions (and I use the term loosely) like Pooh's Playground, Stitch's Great Escape, both recent versions of Imagination, are crap to me. So are attractions that completely segment the audience like Playhouse Disney, which appeals to roughly 5-year-olds. Merchandise that is all the same ... all of it cheap WalMart quality, cartoon crap. Characters placed all over, watering down the stories that are supposed to be told ... what exactly is an Aladdin spinner doing in the middle of Adventureland ... or a Monsters Comedy Club in Tomorrowland? A work force comprised almost entirely of temps ... be it seasonal, college program or internationals who view the place as simply a job. Taking away the little details. Closing attractions (and a water park) and leaving the areas empty or decaying. Stale entertainment that only appeals to children or rabid Disney fans and is only character based. Charging extra for things that always were included ... you know like Christmas. Turning every resturant into either a character locale or dumbing the menus down to accomodate the DDP and 'simple' guests unwilling to try new things. Resort rooms that are only made to appear clean. There ... those are some of the things I feel are CRAP or CRAPPY about the WDW of 2007. Satisfied?
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "but much of it gets lost in this hatred (and let's be blunt that's what it is) for Al." <<I don't hate him. I find his comments to be very damaging, and his supporters to be utterly repellent in their behavior.>> Jon, you may say you don't hate him, but that's not how it appears to anyone reading your hundreds of posts about the man. And while you have a problem with the DoM label, you have no problem labeling his supporters into one neat categorization. To me, that's hypocritical. "And while the DoM label may be a bit over the top, the basic point has validity. If the great majority of Disney fans gladly accept crap, that's what we'll all get. That's simple logic." <<If they accept crap, and that's what they like, that's up to them. Everyone has an opinion as to what is good or not and why. But to then go forth and put a derogatory term to many people in the online community because they don't agree with a certain viewpoint is an empty hostile gesture. It is a behavior he routinely engaged in before he tried to clean up his act.>> Sure. Everyone can believe whatever they choose. But it doesn't mean they won't be judged for doing so. Everyone does so in the real world. If people accept a much lower standard from Disney then the one that made the company so famous for its unmatched quality, Al or anyone else is free to turn around and call them defenders of mediocrity. Anyone who would tell me the MK of 2007 is as good as the MK of 1977 or 1987 or 1997 would not just be wrong based upon Disney's own former standards, but would also be part of the problem in getting the company to live up to its own hype. "I think that numerous -- increasingly personal and hostile" <<Noticed that, have you? Isn't it interesting how that's ok for them to engage in. One says they looked into my history (or whatever) and calls me unsavory. Then drags the name of a friend of mine into it. And they just keep getting nastier. It's a time honored tactic with them. They are simply contemptible. Cult members who when faced with someone being critical of their leader, they respond as viciously as possible.>> I am no cult member, Jon. I have not looked into your past. I only know what you have written. FWIW, I have said on numerous occasions that I believe you make some legit points based upon what others have told me. But when you start calling people who agree with Al on many things -- and I do -- cult members, you lose all credibility. I am a very free thinker and don't need some online blogger to tell me how to feel or react or what is good or not. "jon starts in with the venom-filled rhetoric that people start to show Al some support" <<I'm sorry that I don't act like an 18th century French fop when I speak about someone who is destroying the Disney online community, but that's how it goes. I see no reason to afford courtesy to either him or his minion.>> C'mon. Hyperbole only goes so far. Al is destroying nothing. I can't talk about what when on between you and him and others in the past nor would I want to. But today on 11/11/07 I see nothing to back up this statement at all. <<As far as raising issues? This topic is called "Al nails apologists." The very title of this thread contains an insult, and it CROWS about how Al has stuck it to people who don't agree with him.>> This thread was started by me ... and you may not like the subject. But I used it to get attention because I feel his underlying point was dead on. You must realize there is a huge subculture of Disney fans who believe the company can do no wrong. Personally, I find them more dangerous to the future of what the company produces than the crackpots who believe it can do nothing right. I think what this all comes down to with you is your history with him ... that's fine ... but you have to understand that after 1,347 posts talking about what a vile human being he is, how disgusting you find his minions to be and that he has destroyed the Disney online community etc `... well, you don't come off looking very well.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Personally, I find them more dangerous to the future of what the company produces than the crackpots who believe it can do nothing right.<< I think Disney doesn't really play to this "subculture" at all. They area for-profit company, and they will produce what draws in the largest crowds. The idea that ardent fans are "dangerous" is just silly. Disney knows it has a certain segment of the population who can be categorized as "sure things" -- people who will go see or buy anything with the Disney name on it. But really, that is a relatively small number of people. The reason they invest in theme park maintenance, adding new rides, marketing new movies and TV shows is because the majority of consumers must be marketed to, must be convinced that whatever Disney is offering for consumption is a good value. If the company falls short, or if what it offers is too out of line with what the public wants, the results will show up on the balance sheet. Al's idea of ridiculing everyone who enjoys a particular thing that he does not really only amounts to a flame war within the Disney fan community, the sort of childish nastiness that is largely ignored by anyone at the compay in a position to steer the ship.
Originally Posted By danyoung >The reason they invest in theme park maintenance, adding new rides, marketing new movies and TV shows is because the majority of consumers must be marketed to, must be convinced that whatever Disney is offering for consumption is a good value.< Seems to me that the pendulum swings over the years in the hallowed halls of Disney management. The marketeers have been more or less in charge over the past few years, and the end result is a MK Main Street that has one big shop on the west side, pin trading and plush shops where all the cool and unique merch used to be, and a new park in DCA that caters to the shopper and diner instead of the attraction visitor. Fortunately wiser heads have prevailed, and now the pendulum swings back in the other direction, towards quality and diversity of attractions. I understand Spirit's point perfectly - the more people are willing to accept whatever comes out of the company, the more Disney can put out whatever it wants with the sure knowledge that they'll continue to make money off of it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "but that's not how it appears to anyone reading your hundreds of posts about the man." I don't care how it appears. I don't hate anyone. "you have no problem labeling his supporters into one neat categorization." Except I don't label his supporters in one neat categorization. I am talking about the behavior of people who do what has been going on in this topic, as an example. He has supporters who don't do this. "it doesn't mean they won't be judged for doing so. Everyone does so in the real world. " No. This is a divisive and destructive behavior that basically states "you agree with me or you are a <LABEL>." That is disgraceful behavior. And, yes, they are cult members. When you can't say a word against the leader without them coming out with very aggressive attacks, then it's cultlike behavior. "Al is destroying nothing. " True, he's already wrecked it. He's only keeping the damage going. And frankly, if you can't see it, you're blind. "You must realize there is a huge subculture of Disney fans who believe the company can do no wrong." I'm not one of them. But that does not mean that I then proceed to go and create a subclass out of people I disagree with. "but you have to understand that after 1,347 posts talking about what a vile human being he is, how disgusting you find his minions to be and that he has destroyed the Disney online community etc `... well, you don't come off looking very well." His behavior is disgusting, the people who attack in his name are worse, and there is simply no excusing it. As K2M said, Disney does not play to this crowd. It's all about a power trip by Al, and the crackpots who follow and support him. "Al's idea of ridiculing everyone who enjoys a particular thing that he does not really only amounts to a flame war within the Disney fan community, the sort of childish nastiness that is largely ignored by anyone at the compay in a position to steer the ship." Thank you. That people would in any way make any kind of excuse, or see this behavior as anything other than the rather repugnant behavior for which it is, is disheartening. What has been said to me on here is far worse than anything I've said to anyone else. And it's given a blind eye. Take this very thread, and others just like it on other boards. What has been said is the cause of a lot of ill will and bad feelings amongst people who have no reason to feel such things. Then when he's called on it, his little troop of thugs come out to quash any discussion. There is no excuse for this. NONE. This is mafia like behavior, and if you don't like how I talk, that's a shame. That does not detract from what I am saying, or the validity of it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "the more people are willing to accept whatever comes out of the company, the more Disney can put out whatever it wants with the sure knowledge that they'll continue to make money off of it. " If you don't like what they are selling, you don't buy it. If a majority of people don't like it, they won't, either. That's not our problem. As individuals, we decide whether or not we like something enough to give people money to provide it. It's not up to me, you, or Al, to tell other people there is something wrong with them for liking something. I don't like a lot of the stuff that they do, and have been vocal about it. Does that mean that people who do like it are "unsavory?" No, it means they don't have the same opinion. I'll disagree with them, and explain my reasons why I believe the way I do, but that does not give me leave to tell someone else they are some sort of lesser being for simply not agreeing with me.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<YEAH!!! I pulled I-57 out of the closet! I knew I could do it!>> The powers of The Spirit are truly inestimable. <<>In fact, another point on this thread is that anyone who dares criticize Al Lutz suffers reflexive attacks by his supporters.< This has been said more and more lately on this thread, and I don't think it's true. I think many of us are just fine with criticizing Al or his tone or his track record. It's only when someone like jon starts in with the venom-filled rhetoric that people start to show Al some support. It's all about balance, folks. It's just fine to disagree with anyone, as long as you do it in a civil manner. Sadly, civility has lost its way in this thread.>> danyoung, I agree that: (a) many -- no, MOST -- LP posters are all about balance and they discuss Al Lutz or Disneyland Paris or politics intelligently, and; (b) this thread has been intense and there has been some loss of civility. However, this thread is not the only example to prove my and jonvn's point that there are certain Al-supporters who will broke NO criticism of him. It's been demonstrated over and over here on LP. Even if one posts, "This is good about Al and this is good and THIS is good, but his tone is lamentable," that post will invariably draw a response that labels the original poster a hater. Jon is simply right on this one. Al has followers who are apparently unable to parse out intelligent critical comment, are desperately eager to further Al's martyr status, and/or are so personally attracted to Al that all rationality goes out the window. This thread has been extreme, yes. But it doesn't take venomous comments by Jon to bring defensive and offensive posts by Al's groupies. Numerous thoughtful and non-venomous criticisms of Al on previous LP threads have elicited the same attacks. >><<I really don't care about either very much. I'm more interested in discussing points he and others raise rather than discussing personalities. Your thoughts?>> That would be nice ... and perhaps a first.<< That's a cheap personal shot, CMDad -- which doesn't bother me. It's also substantively incorrect -- which bothers me. I've posted opinions, asked questions, and engaged in substantive dialogue on LP about DL, WDW, DLP, TDR, and HKDL. To say that I haven't posted "thoughts" is factually wrong. In fact, I've posted some of those thoughts on this very thread. Perhaps those don't count. I'd also remind you that this thread is not about WDW. It's about those who comment on it. Spirit of 74 initiated a thread about Al Lutz.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 I'd point out again that none of Al's defenders here have addressed the point that Al's columns are filled with vitriol. Except that one poster has said that Al's comments are "all in fun." And another has said, "Oh, well, he only trashes execs." Well, Al's venomous comments are not "fun." And they're not reserved for execs. When jonvn notes this, calmly, he's immediately attacked. He re-asserts his point. He's attacked again, and on a personal level. He maintains his original point, and defends himself. He's then attacked more rigorously and more slanderously. He adds content to explain his original criticism, and he objects to being personally slammed. The response is then: (a) you must have a personal vendetta for posting the substantiation that you were polite enough not to post initially; (b) if you continue to defend yourself again our attacks, you must be guilty; and (c) Hey! We TOLD you! No FACTS, here! If you keep presenting actual INFORMATION and keep DEFENDING yourself, you're obviously WRONG and HATEFUL! It amazes me that there's any debate about these posts. Sure, jon has been a bit inflammatory. That's his style. But that would also be the way any of us would be when we're told repeatedly that what is obviously true is not true. That defending oneself means that one is guilty. That you have to love Al unconditionally or you are a Disney hater.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I understand Spirit's point perfectly - the more people are willing to accept whatever comes out of the company, the more Disney can put out whatever it wants with the sure knowledge that they'll continue to make money off of it. >> Yes. That's it. Seems like a simple concept. And as someone who wants to see Disney be its best and live up to its amazing creative legacy, it pains me that way too many 'fans' are willing to accept anything the Mouse throws at them and says 'Garwsh ... this sure is neat.' ... no, I don't think they're lesser human beings than me for feeling that way, but I do feel they are less discerning and certainly less knowledgable about what made Disney, Disney. If Disney can sell something of 65% less quality than it used to at 115% higher cost to the guest, it will. In the long run that can't be good for any of us.
Originally Posted By danyoung >Even if one posts, "This is good about Al and this is good and THIS is good, but his tone is lamentable," that post will invariably draw a response that labels the original poster a hater.< I guess your experience differs from mine on this one, as I've made the above kind of statements many times, and have yet to garner any overly negative responses. But then I think I have a pretty good track record of being reasonable, even when showing passion for a viewpoint. >When jonvn notes this, calmly, he's immediately attacked.< I'm not sure jon has ever noted anthing CALMLY - at least I have yet to experience it. Again, go back to message 40 of this thread. It was pure, over the top venom against Al and everything he's ever done. It was in no way calm - it was exactly the opposite. If jon does indeed have a reasonable point of view, it's lost in the howling din of his anger and yes, hatred of Al.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 be thankful Al isn't a tatooed, Christian, living in San Franciso and driving a motorcylce on top of it -- woo hoo then ! ( now of course I wouldn't know Al from a wood nymph - so if he actually is any of the above - it was without my knowledge )
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "it doesn't mean they won't be judged for doing so. Everyone does so in the real world. " <<No. This is a divisive and destructive behavior that basically states "you agree with me or you are a <LABEL>." That is disgraceful behavior.>> I don't know if Al believes this. Or if his so-called 'supporters' do. I don't ... <<And, yes, they are cult members. When you can't say a word against the leader without them coming out with very aggressive attacks, then it's cultlike behavior.>> I'd like to know who 'they' are ... who here do you believe is a cult member? I don't see anyone who fits that description, but maybe I'm missing something. "Al is destroying nothing. " <<True, he's already wrecked it. He's only keeping the damage going. And frankly, if you can't see it, you're blind.>> No. I have my eyes wide open. And honestly Jon, I doubt this thread would even still be going if not for you droning on about what a pig you think Al is. I don't see how Al has affected this site, for example at all. People talk about what he writes (the seven times a year he actually writes anything of substance) and then they move on. FWIW, if his ego is as large as I believe it may be, he's likely enjoying all the attention you're throwing his way. "You must realize there is a huge subculture of Disney fans who believe the company can do no wrong." <<I'm not one of them. But that does not mean that I then proceed to go and create a subclass out of people I disagree with.>> They aren't a subclass to me. They are people I disagree with, and I do believe they can be part of the problem.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<I'd also remind you that this thread is not about WDW. It's about those who comment on it. Spirit of 74 initiated a thread about Al Lutz.>> When I started the thread, I-57, it was supposed to be about what Al wrote, not what kind of human being he is. I don't understand why some people seem to not get the difference between discussing what someone writes and what kind of person that makes them.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I guess your experience differs from mine on this one, as I've made the above kind of statements many times, and have yet to garner any overly negative responses. But then I think I have a pretty good track record of being reasonable, even when showing passion for a viewpoint.>> Another cheap shot, albeit much more skillfully written than DVCDad's. In other words, danyoung, only the "unreasonable" are attacked by Al's supporters? Here's an excerpt from my initial post on this thread (#49). Please tell me if it was inflammatory, if it was one-sided, if it deserved a "you-Al-hater" respsonse: "There seems to be an internet camp that needs to place fellow posters in false-dilema categories: "Love Al/Hate Al" "Defend Mediocrity/Have Standards" "True Believer/Non-Believer" "With Us/Against Us" I think the vast majority of us posters are a bit more sophisticated than this easy reduction would have us be. I, for one, very much appreciate Al's insights, his commitment to standards, and the news he brings. But I cringe when I read his pre-adolescent-like bashing of individuals, his pieces that are little more than self-glorifying hype, and his love-to-be-a-martyr diatribes about how disagreeing with him makes one an apologist."
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<It amazes me that there's any debate about these posts. Sure, jon has been a bit inflammatory. That's his style. But that would also be the way any of us would be when we're told repeatedly that what is obviously true is not true. That defending oneself means that one is guilty.>> And it's amazing to me how easily you excuse/justify Jon's posting style because you obviously agree with him regarding Al, but would go after me with venom for my in-your-face style and defending myself when I am attacked for stating things I know to be fact ... the difference is -- with one notable exception -- I stay away from discussing people's private lives and keep the topic on Disney. Jon has posted about his personal issues with Al on many threads. Now, I don't think he should, but I won't attack him for it. But it sure seems like double standards are the order of the day in the LP depending on who the poster is and what they're discussing.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<When I started the thread, I-57, it was supposed to be about what Al wrote, not what kind of human being he is. I don't understand why some people seem to not get the difference between discussing what someone writes and what kind of person that makes them.>> First, and less interesting here, is the fact that I haven't made ANY personal comments about Al. I've only reacted to what he's written. Secondly, and ENTIRELY to the point... <<I don't understand why some people seem to not get the difference between discussing what someone writes and what kind of person that makes them.>> Ex-SQUEEZE me?! Hel-LLOO! Sorry. It just seemed to me for a minute that you were suggesting that whatever someone wrote on a website would be unrelated to their actual personality. And that they shouldn't have to take responsibility for what they write. LMAO!!! You crack me up!!!
