Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^And silly me I-57, I always thought that on a site like this there were community standards which state that you can discuss what a person writes and not call them names. The difference would be: Good: I-57 made a very ignorant statement. Bad: I-57 is an ignorant swine who survives on the misery of others and I heard he as caught having a sexual relationship with Goofy in a CM breakroom. Pardon me, but I don't think Al's worth as a human being should be fodder for discussion unless we open it up for everyone and make it a free for all. I doubt Doobie wants that. I wouldn't.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<^^And silly me I-57, I always thought that on a site like this there were community standards which state that you can discuss what a person writes and not call them names. The difference would be: Good: I-57 made a very ignorant statement. Bad: I-57 is an ignorant swine who survives on the misery of others and I heard he as caught having a sexual relationship with Goofy in a CM breakroom. Pardon me, but I don't think Al's worth as a human being should be fodder for discussion unless we open it up for everyone and make it a free for all. I doubt Doobie wants that. I wouldn't.>> Spirit of 74, I don't get that at all. Except that it appears to be some kind of personal attack. And uncharacteristic of you.
Originally Posted By jonvn "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." Frankly, you don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. But feel free to attack me some more with some utterly ridiculous and false assertions, you're getting quite good at it. "doubt this thread would even still be going " This thread is going on because I am responding to posts. "I don't see how Al has affected this site, for example at all." I reallly don't see why I should have to explain it yet again, and then when I do have someone like danyoung then tell me I'm some hysterical freak. "I believe it may be, he's likely enjoying all the attention you're throwing his way." He very well may be. Probably is. Who cares. "They aren't a subclass to me. They are people I disagree with, and I do believe they can be part of the problem. " Yes, but they were declared to be by Lutz, and his followers are going along with it, and that's what is wrong, deserves "venom." I will say, however, that Danyoung doesn't know the meaning of the word venom if he thinks this is me being venomous. "I don't think Al's worth as a human being should be fodder for discussion " But Al disagrees as to whether that is fodder for him to discuss if you disagree with him. And it is of course fodder for his culties to discuss, as well. And it's gone on for a while, and this long what they have engaged in, not just with me, but with many others, as well.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Spirit of 74, I don't get that at all. Except that it appears to be some kind of personal attack. And uncharacteristic of you.>> I thought it was pretty clear. And no personal attack was made. I was trying to show the difference between attacking someone's point vs. attacking the person. Again, I thought I was clear, but I've been up for 16 hours, so maybe it isn't.
Originally Posted By danyoung ME: >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.< I-57: >Another cheap shot, albeit much more skillfully written than DVCDad's. In other words, danyoung, only the "unreasonable" are attacked by Al's supporters?< Wow! I have to say that this exchange really illuminates the light under which you read posts here, I-57. What I said was in no way an attack, on you or on anybody else. I wasn't even thinking in that direction when I wrote what I wrote. I was simply stating that I'm rarely accused of hysteria or hyperbole (and again, I'm NOT accusing you or anyone else of those traits in this message), so perhaps that's why I don't get jumped on when I disagree with Al. While I admit that the above is a possibility, I find it much more likely that people are reading between the lines and ascribing motives that don't really exist. In other words, this conspiracy of Al supporters to quash all opposing viewpoints doesn't exist. I don't think anyone in this thread or others have any problem with jon disagreeing with Al. The problem comes with the harsh, venomous barrage of hatred that comes out nonstop. And that's where people (like me) will take jon to task - not for his opinions, but for his reactions.
Originally Posted By jonvn "In other words, this conspiracy of Al supporters to quash all opposing viewpoints doesn't exist." I don't care what you care to think, there are other people as well who have been treated to this behavior, for a long period of time. Those of us who have been at the receiving end of this sort of thing are not to thrilled with hearing about how what we know to be true is not. Don't tell me what has happened and has gone on, you don't know what you are talking about. "The problem comes with the harsh, venomous barrage of hatred that comes out nonstop." There is no hatred. You keep labeling me, though. "And that's where people (like me) will take jon to task - not for his opinions, but for his reactions." You're not taking me anywhere. You're simply acting as an apologist for Lutz and his followers. So your words mean basically nothing. That you ignore not only me, but other people saying the same thing says quite a bit, and I'm simply not concerned with your opinions of me. You're doing a fine job as a Lutz shill, whether this is intended or not. The others have disappeared, but you keep on ticking. I've outlasted others. And you're no one special. Just the latest in a long line of superior sounding people who seem to think that plainly cult like behavior is just fine. Well, I don't, and I'm not interested in hearing you tell me that I'm filled with hate. You don't know what you are talking about, period.
Originally Posted By danyoung Sigh. This is the time when a wise man would just shut up and move on. But Mamma always said I never quite knew when to shut up, so here goes - >Don't tell me what has happened and has gone on, you don't know what you are talking about.< I stated that I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy against those who speak out against anything Al Lutz posts, and I stand by it. And my proof of that is that I've been as vocal as anybody when I disagree with Al, and have seen no deluge of dissenters trying to shut me up. The fact here is that your history with the man has built up to such a point that your initial reaction to anything he says is violent. It's that violence that others (including myself) object to, not your opposing opinion. >There is no hatred. You keep labeling me, though.< Hey, if it walks like a duck (although you'll tell me there's no duck, I'm sure (that was a joke!)). No one can tell what you're truly feeling. But the words that you put down for us to read feel as if there is an incredibly large buildup of hatred behind them. Only you know if this is the case or not, but it sure seems to me (and many others) that you've got some serious bad blood between the two of you. >You're not taking me anywhere.< Yes I am - I'm taking you to task. It's a colloquialism - look it up. >You're simply acting as an apologist for Lutz and his followers. So your words mean basically nothing.< I don't know how much clearer I can be, but I'll try. While I have nothing against Al in the long run, I disagree with him quite frequently, and I do so publicly on this and other forums. I very strongly disagreed with his entire tone of attack just after DCA opened. Since then he's mellowed a bit, but he can still be pretty snarky. I really don't like the entire DoM label, and have said so. So no, I am in no way an Al apologist. The fact that you would label me one, just because you and I disagree, speaks to your clear prejudice in this matter. And I'm not using the word prejudice in a negative way - you just don't like Al, and if anyone doesn't jump on your bandwagon they by definition MUST be an Al apologist. In this case it simply ain't true. >The others have disappeared, but you keep on ticking. I've outlasted others.< I've commented on this before, jon - the idea that you're not discussing with any interest in finding common ground. You have your mind made up, your prejudices in place, and no matter what anyone else says you're going to cover your ears and sing "la la la LA LA LA" and not listen to anyone, including what I'm saying now. I have no interest in outlasting you. But if you continue to make statements that I disagree with, I'm going to comment on them. Again, that's what these boards are all about. It's not a contest. >Just the latest in a long line of superior sounding people who seem to think that plainly cult like behavior is just fine.< I don't have the slightest interest in cult like behavior. I think for myself, just as you do (and just as Al does). Sure, there's an element of online folks who completely buy every word he says. I'm not one of them - never have been. But I do enjoy reading his articles, and getting a sense of what's to come within the Disney company. Is he right every time? Of course not. But his track record is strong enough that I continue to read what he writes, unlike Jim Hill's articles, which seem more and more to be made up fantasies. That's just my perception, and may or may not be correct. jon, old soul, it's always interesting bantering with you. If my use of the word "hate" has gotten under your skin, I apologize. I never mean for any of this stuff to get personal, although sometimes it comes dangerously close. Keep an open mind, and we'll tangle again, I'm sure.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I stated that I don't think there's any kind of conspiracy against those who speak out against anything Al Lutz posts, and I stand by it." I never said the word "conspiracy." That is something you invented. "And my proof of that is that I've been as vocal as anybody when I disagree with Al" And my proof is that I've seen other people who have been given pretty rotten treatment. So you were treated nicely. So what? Others have not. Your personal experience is not proof of anything other than your own personal experience. "But the words that you put down for us to read feel as if there is an incredibly large buildup of hatred behind them." OK, time for me to get out the "What is wrong with you" card. What is wrong with you? I don't hate him. I don't like extremely what he says, or what he does, but I don't hate him, or anyone else online. "but it sure seems to me (and many others) that you've got some serious bad blood between the two of you." Of course there is. This doesn't mean I'd not pull him out of a burning car if I happened across it. Matter of fact, I've even sent the guy notes to try and patch things up, which were ignored, and I don't blame him for that. "It's a colloquialism - look it up." Don't condescend to me. You can't even figure out what's going on around you. "So no, I am in no way an Al apologist." Actually, yes, you are, for you are excusing and rationalizing his and their behavior. That makes you an apologist. "if anyone doesn't jump on your bandwagon they by definition MUST be an Al apologist. " No. This is really stupid. You don't have to jump on my bandwagon. But then you don't have to start going after me, and saying they're just fine and dandy people, either. That's what you are doing, and it's behavior like that which puts you in the category of apologist. "You have your mind made up, your prejudices in place," My mind made up on what? And prejudiced about what? Do you even know what prejudice is? It's based on pre-judging. I am not doing that in the least. "But his track record is strong enough " His track record is spotty at best. People remember when he was right, but forget when he is wrong, as he often is. "no matter what anyone else says you're going to cover your ears and sing "la la la LA LA LA" and not listen to anyone, including what I'm saying now. " That's right! Know why? Because I've had several years of dealing with these people. And you don't know anything about any of it, yet you presume to tell me what I should do or think. "I don't have the slightest interest in cult like behavior. " Who said you did? "I do enjoy reading his articles" I don't. And unless there is some major reason to do so, I generally don't. But if they are brought up for discussion, if I feel they are worth discussing, I will comment. And I'll say what I think, thank you very much. "I never mean for any of this stuff to get personal, although sometimes it comes dangerously close. Keep an open mind, and we'll tangle again, I'm sure." What bothers me in what you are saying is that you are not paying attention to what I am talking about, the history, and the problems that have been caused, and simply dismissing it out of hand. You say you want to find a middle ground? It sounds quite a bit different to me. I'm not interested in treating people respectfully when they engage in the behaviors that I've seen over the last decade. I'm not going to sit and let them roll over me as they have so many other people. Some people have left the online community because of them, and have taken up other interests. You really have no clue as to what has gone on, and yet you presume to tell me how I should act? I don't think so.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/cowabunga.wav" target="_blank">http://www.johnspeedie.com/hea ly/cowabunga.wav</a>
Originally Posted By danyoung jon, you said only one thing that I agree with - >This is really stupid.< Later.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Later." Yes, it is stupid. Glad you're done. I hope you have realized what a waste of time you've engaged yourself in.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder <a href="http://www.johnspeedie.com/healy/thisgame.wav" target="_blank">http://www.johnspeedie.com/hea ly/thisgame.wav</a>
Originally Posted By MPierce jonvn please don't take this personally, but are you just looking for a fight. I've read this entire thread from the beggining, and I just don't see danyoung saying or meaning to say anything that should make you defensive. Maybe some other folks went to far, but I think you could possibly be guilty of this yourself. Now I do not know anybody on this board personally. However I have read thousands of their post over the years on this site, and other sites. I was reading Dan's post long before I joined here, so I feel like i've grown accustom to his posting style. I have always found him to be a very fair judge on things even when I had an opposing view. I have never known him to attack another poster. I don't know you, and I don't know what your experiences have been, but I think this is a very touchy subject for you, when it comes to Al. Now I can truthfully say I have only read a very few of his columns, and only when someone suggest it. The article that started this thread was one out of maybe a dozen times I read something he had written. I agree in principal, but I feel it is unwise to label pepole. Go back to post #5 if you care to read what I said. Al stirs up controversy from both sides with some of his articles. It seems they get heated sometimes from both sides, opponents, and supporters. I have tried to stay out of this discussion because it was starting to go over the top. That's why I posted on WE, and just had to walk away from it. It just started to seem like a bunch of vicious people over there that wanted to fight rather than discuss. I'm really hoping a WDW board will not become a World Events board. I'm not saying to shut up or change your posting style. Heck I love a little controversy, and people with set opinions, and knowledge to back them up. That's why I always enjoy Spirits postings, and nobody makes me smile more than TDLFAN with his sometimes provactive opinions, and comments. I have had many disagreements with people on many different things in this forum. I just never thought they ever turned mean like this one seems to have done. Sorry if anything I said has seemed offensive to you. I just felt you were way off when it came to danyoung. I really think people want this thing to get back on track or to end.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I think you could possibly be guilty of this yourself." That could be. I am actually rather annoyed at this point regarding this. "It [WE] just started to seem like a bunch of vicious people over there that wanted to fight rather than discuss. " Sometimes it does. But the truth is that it's very controversial stuff on there, and not a few of us are rather strong in our opinions. Some of us also are not very genteel in our comments towards each other. You have to look past that. It's hard, because we get really bent out of shape at each other. "Sorry if anything I said has seemed offensive to you. I just felt you were way off when it came to danyoung." I'm not the least bit offended. The thing is with Dan is that he's kind of ignoring a lot of subtext and history and thinks that he can wave it away by telling me to be nice. And let me tell you, I've tried long and hard to be accomidating to these people, only to have it thrown in my face time and again. So for him to tell me this is very off-putting to say the least. He doesn't care to believe me, that's fine. But I'm going to get a bit defensive when someone who does not know the history then comes along and tells me that I'm mistaken when so much has already gone down. I'm still not mad at him, or think he's a bad person, or hate him, or anything else of the kind. But what he's saying is really not good. "I really think people want this thing to get back on track or to end. " Then what people need to do is stop engaging in it. Quite honestly, I don't see the point in someone telling me in 20 posts that I should feel a certain way or that I'm prejudiced when I have had to deal with these Al jerks for a very long time. It is absolutely a waste of their time, and effort. Because, for goodness sake, I am not going to change my opinion of someone who has just gotten extremely personal in their attacks against me. I may not like what Dan has said but I won't "look into my crystal ball" and pull out derogatory comments about his personal life. I won't sit and throw out names of his friends. I won't sit here and say anything to him other than what I think he is saying stinks. But this stuff WAS done to me on this thread and has been done repeatedly and far worse in the past. And I am not interested in being concilliatory to people who continue to engage in it. I have yet to see a satisfatory explanation as to why I should, either. So, to end this discussion? Stop engaging in it. That's all. It will die on the vine. People just stop taking their up at bat with me, because it's not going to do you a bit of good.
Originally Posted By MPierce I certainly hope you don't think I was taking an up at bat at you. That was never my intention.
Originally Posted By jonvn It didn't seem like. But you know, this thread was about Al "nailing" apologists. That in itself is a divisive and hostile act, and that has set the tone of this thread.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Let's call a spade a spade. The Witches really dumped on jonvn (unfairly in my opinion) and that is a large part of what triggered all of this.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<Wow! I have to say that this exchange really illuminates the light under which you read posts here, I-57. What I said was in no way an attack, on you or on anybody else.>> In that case, danyoung, I'm sorry for making assumptions and attributing an incorrect motivation to you. I admit that on this thread, due to other posters' comments, I am inclined to react defensively. I apologize to you for that. I totally agree with you that posting in a factual, reasonable way on LP *usually* brings similarly reasonable responses. But for whatever reason -- and unlike YOUR experience -- that has not been the case for me when I have made comments that are even mildly critical of Al Lutz.
Originally Posted By jonvn 57: No one seems to believe the behavior until it actually happens to them. Then the light shines in on them and they realize what's really going on. I've seen this so many times now.
Originally Posted By danyoung Thanks, MPierce, for the kind words. And I-57, your apology is warmly accepted.
