Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I hate bullying and would never do that.>> Oh, but you do. Consistently, with anyone who dares to disagree with you. You do it very skillfully, very cleverly, so that it doesn't look like blatant bullying. But you consistently attempt to shut down with personal attacks those who challenge you. We can take me as an example. I hadn't had much exposure to you on the internet. And then I read a post in which you excoriated DLP for not having sufficient washers and driers on property. In response, I posted that DLR had the same dearth of laundry machines. You ignored my post. I posted again, and asked for your reaction. You said that you had no idea that what I was saying was true. I offered proof. You said that you weren't interested in proof, and that the whole comparison was irrelevant. I asked why a deficiency about one Park that seemed so serious to you that you created a complaining thread about it wouldn't be considered a deficiency in other Parks. You responded by saying that I was attacking you and obviously obsessed with you. Whenever I have questioned you, you have tried to spin it as a "stalker" kind of situation: <<Again, what did I ever say or do to you?>> You. Al. Discrediting those who dare to question.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Oh, but you do. Consistently, with anyone who dares to disagree with you. You do it very skillfully, very cleverly, so that it doesn't look like blatant bullying. But you consistently attempt to shut down with personal attacks those who challenge you.>> That's simply not true. I guess what you're saying is that I'm using 'cloaked' bullying since it isn't obvious to anyone but you with your Klingon technology? <<We can take me as an example.>> Do we have to? As much as I hate talking about me, it goes double for you! <<I hadn't had much exposure to you on the internet. And then I read a post in which you excoriated DLP for not having sufficient washers and driers on property.>> Ah yeah, I recall that thread. <<In response, I posted that DLR had the same dearth of laundry machines. You ignored my post. I posted again, and asked for your reaction. You said that you had no idea that what I was saying was true. I offered proof.>> OK. I don't recall the exact debate, but that sounds familiar. <<You said that you weren't interested in proof, and that the whole comparison was irrelevant.>> That doesn't sound like me. But it's possible. My point I believe was that there were places ... laundromats near DL. There aren't at DLP. I may have also stated that DLP has over 6,000 rooms on property, while DL has far fewer. I also believed (perhaps erroneously if your 'proof' was correct) that the DLH had laundry facilities. <<I asked why a deficiency about one Park that seemed so serious to you that you created a complaining thread about it wouldn't be considered a deficiency in other Parks. You responded by saying that I was attacking you and obviously obsessed with you.>> It absolutely would be a deficiency at both parks. It just would effect far more people in Paris. <<Whenever I have questioned you, you have tried to spin it as a "stalker" kind of situation: <<Again, what did I ever say or do to you?>> You. Al. Discrediting those who dare to question.>> I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings (however unintentional) on some DLP laundry thread. Really. But we're all adults here. Let the pain go and the healing begin. And let's stop making me the subject of threads. I could complain to a moderator, but I won't because I believe in free speech (politics again). I'd actually love to know what you think of WDW and other things Disney because the only way I know you is in threads where I am made the subject. Again, can you let it go? If not, you have my email? Send me that 3-page job on what a terrible human being I am. But you're subjecting everyone else here to having to wait thru this sludge. It's not cool.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 ^^that should be wade, but wait is also kind of appropriate as in waiting to return to the original topic.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 <<I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings (however unintentional) on some DLP laundry thread. Really. But we're all adults here. Let the pain go and the healing begin.>> You didn't "hurt my feelings." I'm a big boy. This isn't about me being devastated. [Another of your character asassinations of someone who's challenging you.] This is a website, and, to me, you're just a poster. <<And let's stop making me the subject of threads... Again, can you let it go?... It's not cool.>> Interesting. You don't seem to mind making yourself the subject of threads. We see you direct attention toward yourself over and over again on LP threads. But it's not cool that I do it? I think this is the MOST legitimate of threads in which to make you a subject. You started this thread to praise Al's put-down of those who disagree with him. I think Al's credibility is limited by his obvious biases. I see similarities between you and Al. Simple enough. Valid fodder for a post, I think. I don't see any legitimate reason for you to run to a moderator. But go ahead. Let them decide. And let me make a separate post that helps illustrate my point.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Interesting. You don't seem to mind making yourself the subject of threads. We see you direct attention toward yourself over and over again on LP threads. But it's not cool that I do it?>> I NEVER make myself the subject of threads. I state opinions on things and debate. You have issues with me, for what I don't know, and you won't either tell me or let them go. <<I think this is the MOST legitimate of threads in which to make you a subject.>> I'm sorry. But unless I save three children as Space Mountain collapses around them due to neglect, I shouldn't ever be the subject of a thread. <<You started this thread to praise Al's put-down of those who disagree with him.>> I didn't see him putting anyone down. If he chooses to call people that are OK with Disney's diminished standards Defenders of Mediocrity that's his choice, but it is accurate. <<I think Al's credibility is limited by his obvious biases. I see similarities between you and Al. Simple enough. Valid fodder for a post, I think.>> I don't. Al owns a website and publishes regular columns. I do neither. I am here simply as a poster. Just like you. <<I don't see any legitimate reason for you to run to a moderator. But go ahead. Let them decide.>> Again, I said I won't. I beleive in free speech and, frankly, I think they're more apt to let this go. <<And let me make a separate post that helps illustrate my point.>> Yet more about me ... it never ends.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Sometimes, Jon, it does." Not really, no. And even if someone is happy with less of whatever than you, that does not make them some sort of lesser person. It means they just don't need the same things, and there is really absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. "I would venture to say today's Disney theme park guest expects far less quality than a typical guest just a decade ago." Let us assume this is true, which it may or may not be. This is after 10 years of people like Al complaining about it. And what has it managed to accomplish? Nothing. A lot of anger and hostility online. This is the problem with his behavior. It has caused a lot of grief for a lot of people and does nothing good in the process. "I also don't think that's what Al was advocating" Actually, I do think that is what he was advocating. That's how it's been taken by just about everyone. "People that find these attractions just fine do contribute to them being built." That is no reason to call them names. As you know, I don't like these things at all. But you know what, if someone does, that does not mean they want a mediocre experience. They just don't actually know any better or realize why this stuff is bad. Or they just DON'T CARE, because it's a theme park and they want to have fun in it, and it's not important to them. "The debate is about what the man said not what kind of human being he is." The type of person he is has caused this behavior to occur again and again. That's why he says the things he does, like calling for people to be fired, or basically demanding that people agree with him or they are labeled. It is a simple, mindless lack of interest in other people that really is awful. You can't separate the person from what he said. He says these things because of what he is. "There are many people who feel Disney can do now wrong." Then they should be allowed to enjoy the place then. The thing to do is not call them names, not treat people as lessers, but if they really think they can do no wrong, then talk about how Disney could do things that we may like, and if they do what we like, and these others think they do no wrong, then everyone wins. You see, you don't effect change in attitude by calling people who sincerely like something defenders of mediocrity. You educate them as to what would be better. And if they don't want to hear it, then that's what they like, they're happy. There is a reason they are happy. I don't fully understand a lot of why people do the things they do, like fill their house with disney paraphenalia, but if that's what they want, then fine. It's not up to me to judge another person's likes or dislikes. His comments are just offensive, and look what they have done. Caused a lot of hurt feelings and anger. Is this really what being a Disney fan is all about? Hurting others? Making them feel bad for the things they like? I am very fully aware that the way I come across is quite harsh sometimes. But I honestly try my best to not hurt other people's feelings but sometimes I can get carried away and when I think I may have, I say sorry. It's just a theme park, and no one deserves to be run down on a personal level over it.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I see people debating and talking. And that's a good thing." A good 30 or 40 posts had to be deleted off one site because of the anger and arguments it all caused. Lots of people have hurt feelings over at micechat. It's wrong, just wrong. "But I do know Disney monitors these sites and pays special attention to certain posters." Me? Do they pay attention to me? Do you work there? Shall I have them give you a raise?
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 Al presents himself on MiceAge as He Who Loves Disney More Than You Do, He Who Knows More Than You, and He Who Is Unbiased and Is Therefore Unquestionable. Spirit presents himself on LP as the same. Fan. Expert. Unbiased. We should take his reports of the status of WDW, for example, as gospel. This is from Sprit's June 2007 thread, "Short, not sweet MK and Epcot observations," in which he had nothing good to say about his experience. A poster asked why Spirit didn't mention a positive change at WDW: <<'74, you didn't mention that they're repaving most of the walkways in MK. Brand new shiny red concretey-stuff is showing up everywhere in the park.>> >>I did notice that paving project and was aware of it. But, honestly, I don't want to say anything that can remotely come off as praise for the management of that park. I want them gone.<< Hmmmmmmm. Objective. Riiiiiiiiiight. It's clear (self-admitted) that politics, not factual reporting, was the determining factor in shaping this trip report. <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-T-87430-P-1.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms gBoard-T-87430-P-1.asp</a> With both Al and Spirit, some jihad against Disney management is primary in shaping their posts about the state of the Parks. And when a visitor to the Parks contradicts that POV with a positive review of their experience, they're labeled as someone who loves Mediocrity or who is contributing to the Walmarting of the Parks. Actual visitors' experience be damned. It's all about slagging the execs. And then slagging any poster who disagrees.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "Sometimes, Jon, it does." <<Not really, no. And even if someone is happy with less of whatever than you, that does not make them some sort of lesser person. It means they just don't need the same things, and there is really absolutely nothing wrong with that at all.>> I never said there was. And I agree, just because someone would rather have a Whopper than a filet mignon doesn't make them a lesser person. Or if the enjoy Knotts more than DCA. Of if they'd rather own a Ford than a Mercedes. It might be fair to say they're tastes are less sophisticated, though. "I would venture to say today's Disney theme park guest expects far less quality than a typical guest just a decade ago." <<Let us assume this is true, which it may or may not be. This is after 10 years of people like Al complaining about it. And what has it managed to accomplish? Nothing. A lot of anger and hostility online. This is the problem with his behavior. It has caused a lot of grief for a lot of people and does nothing good in the process.>> Jon, I simply don't follow Al or his lovers and haters like you do. I do see plenty of hostility, though. I didn't post on the DCA Board for the longest time because 1.) I like the place and have since Day 1 despite its flaws; and 2.) there was constant battles and they never went anywhere. I see things have improved, which is why you see me there. But I honestly don't understand the hostility at all. When all is said and done, we're all talking about theme parks ... entertainment for people ... some of what Disney does is certainly of a higher caliber than others ... but this isn't the war in Iraq ... this isn't global warming. Some people take it way too seriously. "I also don't think that's what Al was advocating" <<Actually, I do think that is what he was advocating. That's how it's been taken by just about everyone.>> I dunno. Do you speak for everyone? I didn't take it that way at all. "People that find these attractions just fine do contribute to them being built." <<That is no reason to call them names. As you know, I don't like these things at all. But you know what, if someone does, that does not mean they want a mediocre experience. They just don't actually know any better or realize why this stuff is bad.>> well, I've often said that the people who never visited WDW before 2000 and think it's perfect simply don't know any better and I get slammed for it ... like I'm calling them ignorant bumpkins when in fact all I mean is they don't have the same points of reference or experience to know that WDW in many respects was a much better place in 1987 than in 2007. <<Or they just DON'T CARE, because it's a theme park and they want to have fun in it, and it's not important to them.>> That's perfectly fine. But it's also fine and accurate to say people with lower standards allow WDW to let its product slide. ... Now, that may not be important to them, but to others it is. "The debate is about what the man said not what kind of human being he is." <<The type of person he is has caused this behavior to occur again and again. That's why he says the things he does, like calling for people to be fired, or basically demanding that people agree with him or they are labeled. It is a simple, mindless lack of interest in other people that really is awful. You can't separate the person from what he said. He says these things because of what he is.>> Jon, you know him (kind of like me knowing some of the execs and Imagineers I write about) so you have some perspective on him (I can't say it is fair because I don't have that, but since I have a lot of respect for you, I'll give you the benefit of doubt here), but most people don't. So what you write just comes off as a personal attack and we're back to arguing the man vs. the message. I don't know the man. I can't in any good conscience debate what kind of person he is. So I'm stuck going with what he writes. "There are many people who feel Disney can do now wrong." <<Then they should be allowed to enjoy the place then. The thing to do is not call them names, not treat people as lessers, but if they really think they can do no wrong, then talk about how Disney could do things that we may like, and if they do what we like, and these others think they do no wrong, then everyone wins.>> Agreed. <<You see, you don't effect change in attitude by calling people who sincerely like something defenders of mediocrity. You educate them as to what would be better. And if they don't want to hear it, then that's what they like, they're happy. There is a reason they are happy. I don't fully understand a lot of why people do the things they do, like fill their house with disney paraphenalia, but if that's what they want, then fine. It's not up to me to judge another person's likes or dislikes. >> We all do this to some extent. It's part of the human experience. When I see someone wearing cheap Disney charatcter tees with six pin lanyards dangling and dirty shoes, I wonder 'is this what people think of me because I spend so much time in Disney parks?' Is that judgmental? Sure. It's the same as when I visit the local casino and see the old ladies mindlessly playing the slots ... I can't help it, but I think these are sad, sad, lonely people. Doesn't make them bad or lesser members of the species. <<His comments are just offensive, and look what they have done. Caused a lot of hurt feelings and anger. Is this really what being a Disney fan is all about? Hurting others? Making them feel bad for the things they like? >> Nothing Al or anyone in the fan community has ever said has made me feel bad. Sometimes I get ticked off, but it lasts until I shut the computer down or leave the LP. Frankly, if Al Lutz makes anyone feel bad, they likely should be seeing a professional therapist. This just isn't that important. <<I am very fully aware that the way I come across is quite harsh sometimes. But I honestly try my best to not hurt other people's feelings but sometimes I can get carried away and when I think I may have, I say sorry. >> Me too. I apparently always hurt I-57's feelings. I'm not really sure why. <<It's just a theme park, and no one deserves to be run down on a personal level over it.>> Of course not!
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 "But I do know Disney monitors these sites and pays special attention to certain posters." <<Me? Do they pay attention to me? Do you work there? Shall I have them give you a raise?>> You never know. And, no, I don't work (and I never have) for The Mouse. While I love much of their creative product, I don't think I could deal with other aspects of the job.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 First, I-57, a question. A very simple one. Is your agenda for me to stop posting here? Because if so, you'll have a very long wait for me to leave. <<Al presents himself on MiceAge as He Who Loves Disney More Than You Do, He Who Knows More Than You, and He Who Is Unbiased and Is Therefore Unquestionable. Spirit presents himself on LP as the same.>> Personal attack. And total BS. I've never said that I love Disney more than anyone. And I do know FAR more about Disney than many of the folks who post here. One VP with more than three decades with the company once told me 'You know more about the place than I do' and it was meant as a compliment. But I never said I'm unbiased. I'm far from it. That doesn't mean I can't present facts as well as opinions. And I do both and try and keep it so people know which is which. <<Fan. Expert. Unbiased. We should take his reports of the status of WDW, for example, as gospel.>> You can take them anyway you like. I don't force anyone to think any way, I'm not omnipotent. <<This is from Sprit's June 2007 thread, "Short, not sweet MK and Epcot observations," in which he had nothing good to say about his experience. A poster asked why Spirit didn't mention a positive change at WDW:>> OK. So instead of taking anything from my most recent trip reports where I state MANY positive things, he digs up a report that is largely negative to suit his anti-Spirit agenda. <<'74, you didn't mention that they're repaving most of the walkways in MK. Brand new shiny red concretey-stuff is showing up everywhere in the park.>> >>I did notice that paving project and was aware of it. But, honestly, I don't want to say anything that can remotely come off as praise for the management of that park. I want them gone.<< <<Hmmmmmmm. Objective. Riiiiiiiiiight.>> I never said it was objective. But everything I wrote was true. I don't have to present every aspect of WDW when I write. <<It's clear (self-admitted) that politics, not factual reporting, was the determining factor in shaping this trip report.>> Bull. You're again trying to discredit me. What is your agenda? Work for the company? Person who hates when Disney gets criticized? Miserable personal life? What is it that makes you have such a hardon for me? As to the pavement that you feel I was so remiss in leaving out of the park. Have you seen it? Do you know why it is being put in? I'll tell you why ... because it has black specks in it that make it harder to tell when it is dirty. So, they can clean less and think no one will be able to tell. If you don't believe me. Ask someone who works there. <<<a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms</a> gBoard-T-87430-P-1.asp With both Al and Spirit, some jihad against Disney management is primary in shaping their posts about the state of the Parks.>> Jihad? Interesting word choice since you seem to have one against me. <<And when a visitor to the Parks contradicts that POV with a positive review of their experience, they're labeled as someone who loves Mediocrity or who is contributing to the Walmarting of the Parks.>> People can write or like whatever they choose. And I am free to turn around and point out things that need to be fixed. I still have yet to read one post on LP where you talk about what you like or dislike, other than your obvious dislike for me, which I kind of thought you were over with. <<Actual visitors' experience be damned. It's all about slagging the execs.>> You know what? That's my right. I know some of the execs. I know how incompetent they are. I know how they waste company funds and fail to keep their parks up to Disney standards. Worse, I know what kind of people some of them are. And I'll go after them when I see fit. Why don't you defend them if you think I'm so unfair? <<And then slagging any poster who disagrees.>> The only one I'd like to slag here is you. I really wonder what exactly your purpose on LP is ... it sure doesn't seem to be about discussing Disney parks.
Originally Posted By Mr X **If so, it was moved to TDL in 1980 and continues to play there. I look forward to seeing it next year on my trip.** Well, I hate to be the bearer of bad news so, no comment.
Originally Posted By Inspector 57 LOL! It's late, and I'd post "I rest my case" and be done with it. But I'll post something more substantial tomorrow.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip I've had major run-ins with both X and I-57, so I don't feel an overwhelming need to defend either one of them. They both (in my opinion) can be unfair and obnoxious and totally one-sided in how they look at things. So probably can I, and the Spirit, and most other people that post here who actually care enough about crap to have a strong opinion. But in the end it's the freaking internet. Who cares? I-57 or X can be complete jerks to me one night and I'm agreeing with them the next. I consciously try NOT to keep a scorecard of who has dumped on me worst. I like almost all folks here at times, and I dislike almost all folks here at times. Doesn't make any damned difference. Whether I like or dislike someone here is not going to make one itty-bitty-tiny amount of difference in my real life. It isn't going to make me richer or poorer or happier or sadder or better looking or not. In the total scheme of things it doesn't make a mouse's butt worth of difference. It's late. Get drunk. Go have sex with someone you like. Go have sex with yourself. Talk to someone you like. Talk with yourself. Do whatever. But don't take this crap so seriously. If I ever did for very long I'd have quit coming here long ago. Not that I'm any smarter about any of this than you are. Although I am. Who cares? Fight global warming and the senseless slaughter of baby seals. It is all good. And it all means about as much. Or as little.
Originally Posted By Mr X Okay, how'd *I* get dragged into this? I haven't contributed to this thread one bit!
Originally Posted By davewasbaloo Well, I go away on business a few days and look what happens! Truth is, virtually every poster on this thread has very strong opinions, and I have agreed and disagreed with every single one of you and one time or another. Some of my fav LPers are on this thread for that very reason. We have intelligent debates about Disney. And in most cases we can all hold our own. That is why I call LP my cyber home! Reality is all of you guys can be fantastic, and at times jerks. And guess what, it's because we are all human. And we all get passionate because of our love (or maybe in some cases former love) of Disney. The internet is both a gift and a curse - because we access at different times, or have limited pockets of time, coupled with the fact that it can be difficult to decifer intent, tone and non verbal communication elements, tempers can fray. But you know what? I came to this site 7 years ago (as a lurker) to learn more about the company. Now, I actually come here more to socialise with people I like. And to me, it's the feisty ones I like the most! So get over it guys. Back to the original thread. As an exec, I can tell you, people will spin as many "facts" as they can to substantiate their business case. As long as people (I want to say idiots or morons, but I suppose everyone is entitled to their own opinion) praise rubber heads, princess parties, cheap tack in the stores, DDP, and all the other things killing the real magic of Disney (it used to exist), then an exec will justify their decision. Hence why I am trying to be more vocal about what I like (DME, Nemo Stage Show, DLP's 15th celebrations) and what I don't (upcharge events, dirty parks, cartoonisation et al). Signed, A pompous poster!
