Originally Posted By woody >>>"I'm not going to apologize for a misinterpretation, even if it came from me. Apologies are required for actual insults." >> I, and I suspect many other people, would disagree. See Posts 71 and 73. Is an apology required for those?
Originally Posted By reddon “Perhaps I leaned a little too heavy in post 83. It's just out of sheer frustration. I have to apologize for that, if it is the case. I sometimes get a bit too harsh with my rhetoric and often wish I could go back and tone down things after they have been posted.” It’s good that you realized that. Maybe you can better understand why some posts here sounds angry also. It’s both a curse and blessing for Disney but it’s a lot better than simply indifference. “I think this is very very true. It seems that people want Disney to operate like the products they sell. It doesn't work that way. Most of this is either very boring reality, or very harsh reality. There's not pixies running around making things happen. Someone once said that creating magic is very hard work. That's true, it is. A lot of people work very hard on this stuff. Sometimes what they do is good, sometimes it's not. The things that are less than good eventually get fixed up. It's been like this always.” That’s your belief and it’s perfectly fine, as long as you don’t dismiss or belittle people for not sharing the same philosophy. You can do that but just don’t expect not to have some heated exchange. If you do think everything is the same as it always been, then what’s your thought on Fab’s November 9 column “Good News?” that talks about how Eisner want to “work toward creative quality, putting on a hat that he hasn't worn, sadly, in years.”?
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue "For me, it is the other way around. If I see a magic trick that I don't know how it was done, I wonder how it was done. If I know how it was done, I can marvel at the art and skill with which it was done." That's fine. I'm glad you enjoy inquiring into these things. But if I know how a magic trick is done, how many more times do I want to see it? And when I do see it, is it the same experience? Not for me. If for you, fantastic. In addition, I may not want to know how the Magician is away from the performance, what staff or other Magician's think of him/her, etc., or what alternative tricks were proposed/budgeted, etc. I'll just judge the show for what it is. Relating this to Disney, I can enjoy (or not, depending on the attraction) an attraction such as Soarin' Over California for what it is, without regard for what PRESSLER(!) or others discussed and decided at some mountain retreat before the attraction opened. I judge the attraction based on the completed experience, not based on what role accountants, management, etc. played in creating it in the first place. My focus is on the experience provided by the end result, not the decisions or developments which led up to that. Again, that others are interested in these things and judge Disney and other parks based on such information is fine. But not everyone shares that perspective.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh "See Posts 71 and 73. Is an apology required for those?" Doesn't appear so. I don't understand the point of 71. In 73, Jon is simply saying there was no hostile intent in his post. Your post implied that none of Jon's opinions are valid. These things are subjective, of course, and sometimes people get a little hypersensitive. But I firmly believe that if I mangle my language to such an extent that I offend someone inadvertantly, I owe that person an apology. Jon has often apologized when his rhetoric gets a little harsh.
Originally Posted By WrongWay >>"Then maybe you should look at the official SEC filed Income Statement, which shows the effects of the Internet write off." >Here. Read this: “Pro forma revenues” bladda bladda bladda.” No, you read this from post 89. “I prefer to look at the official numbers, rather than the restated, when determining the value of a company. It is too easy for companies to hide recurring expenses in those one-time charges. Using ture income, the P/E can't be calculated becuase the company had a net loss.” Maybe you don’t realize that Pro Forma and restated mean exactly the same thing. Originally, Pro Forma meant a company was helping you compare the year after a merger to the year before. Now, more often than not, Pro Forma means the company moved numbers around as much as possible to make it appear haw they wanted instead of how it is. THAT is why I go be SEC (legal, official, well regulated) rather than Pro Forma (where the company can do about anything they want). “This is why they have a P/E, as opposed to what you claim, and why they are making a profit still. You don't think they have a P/E? Go look it up like I did. It's not hard to find.” Again, only if you used the Pro Forma, Massaged, what the company wants you to think numbers. Should I provide the link to the legal income Statement again so you can validate that the company did indeed lose $150 million last FY? >>"You left out the part about the major problems with Disney is that it is $15 billion in debt." > left out that part because that article DOES NOT MENTION IT. And the link does work, you simply have to copy and paste it. In any case, many, if not most, companies carry debt. Debt is not always a bad thing. Too much is, obviously, but having some is not bad. Okay, after some editing, I got your link to work, and it doesn’t mention the $15 billion. As I said, I read that in a different version of the story. Here, try this one: <a href="http://www.mouseinfo.com/news/story.php?id=75" target="_blank">http://www.mouseinfo.com/news/ story.php?id=75</a> “Debt of $9.8 billion at fiscal year-end 2001, has increased to approximately $15.0 billion following the October completion of the acquisition of Fox Family Worldwide for $5.2 billion in cash and assumed debt. “ Some debt is good, but all these downgrades are coming because Disney’s is getting way too high. Why? Acquisitions. The debt reduction is based on earning returning by 2003? Why, because the company doesn’t have any NOW. It is based on people returning to the parks, which I don’t see happening until the economy turns around, and Disney spends some big money repairing them from 5 years of neglect while they bought all these unprofitable/debt generating media units. >>"You burden the company in so much debt, eat all the profits with interest and goodwill depreciation, and then you have so many poison pills that no one can afford to take it over." >This is what you get? You didn't even read the article. Not your version, (because I didn’t get the link to work before) but I read the longer version. I had to or aI wouldn’t have known Disney now has 15 billion in debt, would I? >How can you get this from anything anyone has said here? I didn’t. I got it from understanding why mergers and acquisitions happen. A poison pill (like big debt) is actually a good way of making sure you aren’t bought out. If your profits are low due to huge goodwill write-offs, you can be a target because companies can write off large chunks of that Goodwill in the Pro Forma earnings they do after the acquisition. A poison pill is a lot of debt, or a pending law suit, or something like that, that can’t be simply written off in the Pro Forma statement. Disney won’t be bought now, because anyone that did would have to assume $15 billion in debt. >>"Sure, earnings recovery is great, but how does the company get there." >Well, that's the problem of course. The thing is that the theme parks were not the source of the loss of income, the film studio and merchandising were. Ummm, I think it was the Internet venture, and TV, but I could be wrong. I’ve not seen the line item version of the Income Statement, just the SEC filed version. I think most of the loss is coming from depreciation of Goodwill from acquisitions, and from the massive debt load the company has taken on. “So, if you are concerned about their bottom lines, then you should be complaining about their film output, not their theme park performance. Now, however, even the theme parks are having rough seas because of the economy and the capper of 9/11. “ The economy was in the crapper long before that. I have been complaining about the film performance lately. The best Disney flicks of late have been the Pixar done ones. I think the last couple Disney flicks have, like DCA, been aimed at new customers rather than current, so have missed the target on both. A wise cracking, annoying, whining emperor, in a movie with so few funny parts that every one had to be shown on the previews? A Disney movie that was more video game than fairy tale, with not a single song? Pearl Harbor had scenes that belonged in a Sunday Morning cartoon, not in a movie about one of the most significant event in U.S. history. Kids landing a plane? Let’s fly straight at each other and turn away so the Japaneese crash into each other? Please. Even worse has been the TV programs. I love Disney, but rarely watch ABC. CSI, Law and Order (all 3), ER, Enterprise, Andromida, 7th h Heaven (yes, even as an atheist I like that show a lot), Gilmore Girls, are so much better than just about anything on ABC. Disney runs the same things over and over, and now with ABC Family, they have nothing I’m interested in watching. ABC is forced to show uncut “Private Ryan” F-Words and all, and Victoria Secrets soft porn to get any ratings at all. Back to my original premise. I don’t think Disney has done much right lately. I think they need to dump the TV they are doing miserable at, make some better movies, and get back to making good Disney movies and improving the theme parks. They especially need to convert the amusement park known as DCA into a Disney theme park. >Disney has been a media conglomerate for many years. They didn't just become one. I think the change occurred with the purchase of ABC/Capital Cities in 1995. It just took a couple years for Disney to start seeing the effects. >>"No, I’m saying he should quit using the profits to buy unprofitable units, and start using more of the funds to reinvest in the parks." >If they had followed that pattern throughout their history, they never would have been more than a simple cartoon studio. And, as has been noted, the parks up until very recently have been doing fine. They need to invest in those areas that are doing less well. No, they need to dump the things that are doing less well, and address the issues as to why the parks have been doing less well. For a half a decade, a promotion or new parade has taken the place of a new attraction as the way to attract new people. The problem is that the new parade or promotion has no lasting effect. New attractions will boost attendance for decades after they are built. That is, assuming, they are Disney quality, not Six Flags quality. Six Flags quality usually only boosts attendance for a year or two. DCA didn’t even get that. >>"I prefer to look at the official numbers, rather than the restated, " >That's nice. The rest of the planet doesn't do things like that, though, and Disney does have a P/E. Not true. More and more analysts are ignoring the Pro Forma because companies have so misused them to hide losses. Check this article: <a href="http://eastbay.bcentral.com/eastbay/stories/2001/10/29/focus4.html" target="_blank">http://eastbay.bcentral.com/ea stbay/stories/2001/10/29/focus4.html</a> Though I know you won’t read it. >>Or, I could just go along with Jonvn, and agree that a Six Flags like park (DCA) isn't a major devistion of what Disney has been doing all along." >I have NEVER said that. No, but you’ve convinced me DCA isn’t that different from other Disney parks. DCA, to me, isn’t that different from many Six Flags parks. Therefore, Disney parks aren’t that different from Six Flags parks.
Originally Posted By jonvn "That’s your belief and it’s perfectly fine, as long as you don’t dismiss or belittle people for not sharing the same philosophy. You can do that but just don’t expect not to have some heated exchange." Um, what? This is what I said: "There's not pixies running around making things happen. Someone once said that creating magic is very hard work." This isn't a philosophy. There REALLY AREN'T pixies running around making things. It's a lot of hard work from a lot of people. I further went on to say that sometimes they do good, sometimes they don't. This is a philosophy? "If you do think everything is the same as it always been, then what’s your thought on Fab’s November 9 column “Good News?” that talks about how Eisner want to “work toward creative quality, putting on a hat that he hasn't worn, sadly, in years.”? " This is a non-sequitor. Products being sometimes good and sometimes bad has nothing to do with what Eisner decides he wants to do with running the place. I'm glad for him that he wants to get back in the creative end of things. ">Here. Read this: “Pro forma revenues” bladda bladda bladda.”" Oh my....Well, I guess that shows me. I only put in here the opening two paragraphs from their financial statement. But, hey, if you know better then, fine. "No, you read this from post 89. “I prefer to look at the official numbers, rather than the restated, when determining the value of a company. It is too easy for companies to hide recurring expenses in those one-time charges. Using ture income, the P/E can't be calculated becuase the company had a net loss.”" I'm happy you have a philosophy regarding how you personally look at profit and loss. However, most everyone else in the world tends to look at it differently, that they have earnings per share, and that they have a P/E. It is ridiculous to say they don't, as it's even listed on the very page you pointed me to. Say whatever you want, and ignore anything said to you, but it is what it is. It's very easy to show you are not correct here, as they do have a p/e, and it is clearly available in several places. <deltia> "Disney won’t be bought now, because anyone that did would have to assume $15 billion in debt." Gee, like Time Warner wasn't bought with it's massive amount of debt... "I think the change occurred with the purchase of ABC/Capital Cities in 1995. It just took a couple years for Disney to start seeing the effects." You can think what you want, but at that time, they already were running several different media outlets, including broadcast TV, a few movie studios, a publishing division and were producing plays for Broadway. That's what I can think of right now. "No, they need to dump the things that are doing less well, and address the issues as to why the parks have been doing less well." This is pretty pointless. You are not reading what is being said to you. The parks until just this year HAVE been doing well. It was the FILM division that was dragging the place down. "Not true. More and more analysts are ignoring the Pro Forma because companies have so misused them to hide losses. Check this article: <a href="http://eastbay.bcentral.com/ea" target="_blank">http://eastbay.bcentral.com/ea</a> stbay/stories/2001/10/29/focus4.html Though I know you won’t read it." Unlike you, I am actually interested in finding out things, so I looked at it. You see, the point of this is information exchange. This is not something you are apparently interested in, but I am. So, when people point me to a link, I look at it. When people say something to me, I read it and try to understand what they are saying. I really don't see the point of you trying to have a conversation on a bulletin board if you are not willing to do such things. And in reading this, they are talking about something completely different. They are talking about companies hiding losses by stating that recurring losses are one time events. Disney took a one time charge due to killing off their go division. I mean this is pretty ridiculous. This is taking one thing, and making something else unrelated out of it. "No, but you’ve convinced me DCA isn’t that different from other Disney parks. DCA, to me, isn’t that different from many Six Flags parks. Therefore, Disney parks aren’t that different from Six Flags parks." First, you admit I never said such a thing. Then I have to ask, why did you make up a lie and say that I did? Was there a point to it? Are your arguments so weak that they can't stand up without having lies added to them? Second, if Disney parks aren't that different to you than any other Six Flag park, then I suggest you save the money you spend on Disney parks, and just stick to your Six Flags parks, unless that was a lie, as well. Intellectual dishonesty comes about because you have nothing of any validity to say about the subject. It's a shame people have to resort to lies and other distortions in order to try to give their otherwise totally baseless comments some backing.
Originally Posted By reddon “"That’s your belief and it’s perfectly fine, as long as you don’t dismiss or belittle people for not sharing the same philosophy. You can do that but just don’t expect not to have some heated exchange." Um, what? This is what I said: "There's not pixies running around making things happen. Someone once said that creating magic is very hard work." This isn't a philosophy. There REALLY AREN'T pixies running around making things. It's a lot of hard work from a lot of people. I further went on to say that sometimes they do good, sometimes they don't. This is a philosophy?” Maybe I read this particular paragraph wrong, but one of your mantra has always been the how some fans are not being realistic. Remember the exchange we have about comparing TDS and DCA, you are the one that keep bringing up the budget and said comparing the two are “ridiculous” because the TDS has much more budget. If you want to focus on harsh reality financial stuff, it’s OK, that’s your thing. But telling people they can’t do that and is being ridiculous is a put down. Same thing for the “The things that are less than good eventually get fixed up. It's been like this always”. Some people don’t think Disney is trying to fix up or fix up right. If you think everything will eventually evens out, then that’s your belief. But Disney is a much bigger and different company now, just like you have emphasized over and over. So I think there’s reason to believe that history may not be repeating itself in this case. “"If you do think everything is the same as it always been, then what’s your thought on Fab’s November 9 column “Good News?” that talks about how Eisner want to “work toward creative quality, putting on a hat that he hasn't worn, sadly, in years.”? " This is a non-sequitor. Products being sometimes good and sometimes bad has nothing to do with what Eisner decides he wants to do with running the place.” My point is that things are not what they used to be, a view which I don’t think you share. I think Disney is not paying as much attention to the quality as with bottom line. I am not a Disney history buff, but it’s a sentiment shared by the aforementioned Fab’s column and Jim Hill’s column (the latest Eye Drive column from Jim is a good indication).
Originally Posted By WrongWay "And in reading this, they are talking about something completely different. They are talking about companies hiding losses by stating that recurring losses are one time events. Disney took a one time charge due to killing off their go division. I mean this is pretty ridiculous. This is taking one thing, and making something else unrelated out of it." The point of the article, was that most companies that restate, put recurring charges into their one time write off. How is it possible for me to know Disney hasn't done this? Until we have government regulations (and punishment for lying) regarding restatements, companies are still free to say ANYTHING they want in the pro forma. For this reason, I, and many many others, ignore pro forma, and look at the income statement, where if they lie they are punished. Legally, Disney had a net loss for last year. In pro forma, thay can claim whatever they want. I'll stick to what is verifiably true, thank you very much. "This is pretty pointless. You are not reading what is being said to you." No, I read it, I contimplate it, and for most of what you say, I disagree with it. Just because you said it, doesn't mean I'm going to fall down and worship your words as if they are truth. I think the truth is that Disney is in bad shape. I think they are in bad shap because they made some really bad acquisitions. You stating over and over that growth has kept them independant, doens't convince me they've grown in the wrong way. I think they should dump the duds, and put their energy into doing things well, instead of trying to everything acceptably. "This is pretty pointless. You are not reading what is being said to you. The parks until just this year HAVE been doing well. It was the FILM division that was dragging the place down." I read it and disagree. Parks have been doing well, by living off past glory. More and more, they are giving less stuff for higher cost. I think they need to invest some more money into the parks, so it returns to giving the customers the value they want. I understand parks have been doing well up to this point. I don't think they will CONTINUE to do well in the NEAR FUTURE, wihtout investment. If the film division is sucking, then dump it! Still, I find it hard to believe that the Film is the only problem. Film didn't create the $15 billion in debt. Film isn't accounting for all the drop in prift over the last 3-4 years. Even if we use the likely inacurate pro forma, profits are WAY off. And, it isn't just the last 1-2 years since the economy tanked. Disney profits were headed down 3-4 years ago, not long after the ABC purchase. BTW: what broadcast TV did Disney own before they bought ABC? "First, you admit I never said such a thing. Then I have to ask, why did you make up a lie and say that I did? Was there a point to it?" No point other than humor. It is this thing called irony. The exact opposite of what is expected. No one would ever think you would convince me that Disney is no better than Six Flags, yet by arguing that DCA is not different than other DInsy parks, while I believe DCA to be very Six FLags like, that is in effect, exactly what you are doing. See, you did say DCA is not different from other DIsney parks. I've said 3,452,465,675 times that I think DCA is Six Flags like. If I accept you argument that other DIsney parks are like DCA, than I must accept that other Disney parks are also like Six Flags. See the irony now? You convincing me Disney is no better than Six Flags? Should I 'splain it again? Jonv, final point. We clearly disagree on where Disney should go. I don't think I've personally insulted you, just disagreed with you, and given reasons why. On the other hand, yoiu accuse me of not reading, not paying attention, not trying to listen what you are saying. I do read and listen, I just disagree. Please stop insulting me, AND please stop implying that it is only the DCA bashers that call poeple that disagree "wrong". It is you that keeps implying I'm wrong (not paying attention becuase I didn't suddenly accept your opinion as TRUTH) for disagreeing with you. I get it. You think Disney should continue to diversify, shaking every penny out of the park guests, to invest in movies and TV and other nonprofitable divisions. You think that not doing so would make the company a target for take over. I disagree. I think the company should dump the crap and get back to treating its park visitors as valued guests. I think that failure to do so, will lead to lower attendance, less people going to the movies becuase they've lost attachment to the company, deeper loses and eventual bankruptcy or hostile take over.
Originally Posted By WrongWay Reddon: "My point is that things are not what they used to be, a view which I don’t think you share. I think Disney is not paying as much attention to the quality as with bottom line." And this goes hand in hand with my belief that expansion into new markets has gotten the company into trouble. With $15 billion in debt, they HAVE to shake every penny out of every customer, and spend as little as possible on the priduct, because they need hundreds of millions to pay interest, and hundreds of millions more to cover write off of goodwill, and then still hundreds of millions more to justify the stock price. Eisner's adventures have put the company into a position where THEY must worry solely about the bottom line. It si too bad, because that almost always leads to deminishing top line in the long run.
Originally Posted By jonvn "On the other hand, yoiu accuse me of not reading, not paying attention, not trying to listen what you are saying. I do read and listen, I just disagree." Actually, I feel you don't. As a matter of fact, you don't even disagree on some things, but since you aren't even listening to what is being said to you, you're skipping right over that. Sorry, but that's how it appears. When I have to say three or four times the same thing you do, and you still think I disagree with you on something, then I can think no other thing. "No point other than humor. It is this thing called irony. The exact opposite of what is expected." Uh, no. You made a statement that I said a certain thing when I didn't, and you knew that I didn't. That's dishonesty, not irony. Is this somehow unclear? "Please stop insulting me, AND please stop implying that it is only the DCA bashers that call poeple that disagree "wrong". It is you that keeps implying I'm wrong (not paying attention becuase I didn't suddenly accept your opinion as TRUTH) for disagreeing with you." Again, you're not listening very clearly to what has been said, and I don't really find it worthwhile to explain it to you, yet again. So, take whatever you came into this conversation with and go away with it, because you have listened to not one other person, or what they have had to say. On the other hand, I'll take what you have had to say, decide what parts are worth accepting or not, and move on with hopefully a better understanding. Although everything you've said has been said many times before by other people. Some of it is valid, most is ill-informed. "I get it. You think Disney should continue to diversify, shaking every penny out of the park guests, to invest in movies and TV and other nonprofitable divisions." Actually, no. I never said that, either. "I disagree." I'm glad you disagree with the point you invented. I suppose discussing things I've actually said is much harder than coming up with things yourself to disagree with, and then simply pinning them on me.
Originally Posted By AgentLaRue Wow. For some of these posts, I think I'll wait for the Reader's Digest version.
Originally Posted By reddon "The topics are all messed up....." Well, I clarify my points for you in post 107. Any more clarification that you think you might need?
Originally Posted By SpoonCM I think I have learned more about Disney stock in the past few posts than sitting in Accounting classes...
Originally Posted By jonvn "Well, I clarify my points for you in post 107. Any more clarification that you think you might need? " After a statement like that I don't think I need to hear much of anything else from you. In trying to be as polite as possible in replying to some of these more outlandish posts, I feel it is a responsibility to try and speak towards basic common sense as much as possible. This usually falls on deaf ears. I shouldn't find this too surprising, but I still do, unfortunately. But the few times it does get through, or the few times someone brings a point up that I hadn't considered does seem to make it worthwhile, I suppose. The fact that things ebb and flow with time, and that things do better or worse here and there especially in the entertainment industry is something I would expect most people to be able to grasp without having to explain the semantic minutae of every word in every sentence. To quote you: "I am not a Disney history buff." No, apparently you are not. Well, I am, and have been for many years. Your comments are typical of those made by people who have no idea regarding history, yet are filled with demands that Disney conform to some impossible standard that they never have met, and that no one could ever meet. Your opinions are based on a self-admitted base of weak knowledge, and a distinct ability to ignore those facts that do not suit your particular viewpoint. For example, you claim that somehow whatever they are doing will not be eventually corrected. And you base this on WHAT? Anything? I doubt it, as example after example shows that they work to correct things in their parks that are not working out. They are scheduled right now to spend hundreds of millions of dollars (at least over one hundred million) for additions to DCA alone. This is a repeated pattern, going back to their first park built in the 1950s. Of course they're not perfect, and no one says they are. No one says DCA is without faults, for example, or that anything else they do is without fault. Perhaps they did not initially spend enough on DCA, perhaps they are cutting back too much in WDW. But this demand by various people online here that they be perfect in everything they do is completely unrealistic, and is an offshoot of a nearly total lack of knowledge or understanding of corporate history. The difference between what I am saying here and what others seems to be saying is that while I'm saying they are not perfect now, they also have never been perfect in the past, either. Somehow, people have gotten it into their heads that they were always dead on target, and now they aren't. Well, it's not true. They've always had problems. There have always been missed opportunities. They, like every other corporation, screw up a lot, and they do it all the time. Every place I've ever worked has been messed up in some way or another. No place is, or ever will be, even close to perfect and this simply will not change. In a big corporation some things get better at times, some things worse. In the years following Walt Disney's death, the park division was greatly enhanced, but the film divisions produced absolutely nothing but total junk. In the 80s when Eisner first took over, the film division made massive improvements while attractions at the parks did not fare as well, although they did improve somewhat. The bigger the company, the more varied the things that can be that can be good or bad. As far as Jim Hill's column goes while I respect Jim Hill and his abilities and knowledge, he quite often takes an overly negative approach to facts that I feel are just not fully merited. That's his right, he's got an opinion column and gets paid to write things that are opinionated. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don't. Reasonable people can disagree on things when presented with the same sets of facts. In the instance of this latest note from him, for example, the subtext of the most drastic historic reduction in resort attendance post 9/11 is really overlooked. When you lose 25% of your revenue, you have problems keeping up cash flow. It really should come as no surprise that Disney is cutting back in the wake of what is going on with the economy. Lots of other people are cutting back, as well. I'll say this again: Viewing events at Disney in a vacuum, as if they do not exist in reference to other current economic and sociological references is not a worthwhile exercise, and has little value. It's senseless to think they can exist on a separate plane of reality from everything else in the world, and by repeatedly only talking towards specific Disney facts and not relating them to other associated issues, people do exactly that. Lastly, your other point, "If you want to focus on harsh reality financial stuff, it’s OK, that’s your thing. But telling people they can’t do that and is being ridiculous is a put down." This has absolutely nothing to do with what I've said or what I talk about. So, if you don't mind, if you can't understand what I'm talking about, don't have knowledge of what the company has historically done, and don't understand how this company or any other company has to operate, I really see no further need to respond to your posts as they are insulting and simply lack merit. Now, I could have just let this slide by, let it go, and give you the last word, because I was trying to be polite. But since you insisted on a response, here it is for you. I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but I was trying to avoid it.
Originally Posted By AladdinAZ Wrongway wrote: "On the other hand, you accuse me of not reading, not paying attention, not trying to listen what you are saying. I do read and listen, I just disagree. Please stop insulting me, AND please stop implying that it is only the DCA bashers that call poeple that disagree "wrong". It is you that keeps implying I'm wrong (not paying attention becuase I didn't suddenly accept your opinion as TRUTH) for disagreeing with you" I just wanted to commend you for being able to read through "Mr Spocks" erroneous "logical" analysis of this topic. I've enjoyed reading through the posts you have placed on this. Personally, I don't think I would like to work for Disney. It would take away the magic for me. Just as you like to know how a magician does the "tricks" and admire their skill in doing it, for the most part I prefer to enjoy the "magic." Every once in a while, my curiosity does arise and I will want to know how a certain effect is preformed. But I still want a few things to be a "mystery" to me.
Originally Posted By woody Thank goodness for the monologue because it's not a debate. Sometimes brilliance is best expressed to other equally bright people. Too bad it doesn't apply to many of us. Aside from the perfect, the rest are either bashers or minions. >>Personally, I don't think I would like to work for Disney. It would take away the magic for me. I really don't think this matters. Many Disney employees are also Disney fans. They are capable of enjoying Disney products like any other civilian.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I just wanted to commend you for being able to read through "Mr Spocks" erroneous "logical" analysis of this topic. I've enjoyed reading through the posts you have placed on this. " Exactly what is erroneous, or are you just there to throw puerile insults? There was no reading through of anything here. Just a simple disregard of easily found information that belies what was being said. But, since it what was said was negative towards Disney, I'm sure it gave you great comfort.
Originally Posted By reddon ""Well, I clarify my points for you in post 107. Any more clarification that you think you might need? " After a statement like that I don't think I need to hear much of anything else from you." To quote you: "I am not a Disney history buff." No, apparently you are not. " You better look into your own posts and take out those cheap shots sling at other people before you accuse me or anyone else. I will let everyone else be the judge on who's trying to be polite and conduct a pleasant conversation here. I take that the main message from you post is this: "But this demand by various people online here that they be perfect in everything they do is completely unrealistic, and is an offshoot of a nearly total lack of knowledge or understanding of corporate history. The difference between what I am saying here and what others seems to be saying is that while I'm saying they are not perfect now, they also have never been perfect in the past, either. Somehow, people have gotten it into their heads that they were always dead on target, and now they aren't. Well, it's not true. They've always had problems. There have always been missed opportunities. They, like every other corporation, screw up a lot, and they do it all the time. " These are good points, just like I have acknowledged in my last post. But is this a sure thing that things will get better? How do we know if it won't get worse? Can you foresee the future? Aren't you the one saying Disney is a different company now? It's much bigger now so why should we expect that it will behave the same as before, if we do want to use history as a lesson. That’s nothing unrealistic when people have concerns about how Disney is doing right now or how decision is being made. How many corporations made the wrong decision and never recover? If you want to be optimistic, that’s fine. Are these fans, including myself, worry too much? Maybe. Time will tell, not jonvn will tell. Don’t force your opinion on others and writing post like you possess the one and only truth, telling people that they are not acknowledging the “facts”. If you just make your case, and take out dismissive commentary like “But this demand by various people online here that they be perfect in everything they do is completely unrealistic”, I won’t have a problem with that at all. Post and let post, respect other's opinion. If you want to be combative, fine. Just don’t come back and complains that there are too many negativity or people are being hostile.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh There's a great deal of precedence that things will get better. There's little precedence that things will get worse. What I object to is people stating as fact that things will only get worse. When someone like Jon counters that this is not what has historically happened, they are often villified or mocked. I would get hostile too. As I stated before, I have seen Jon apologize. There are several posters who do not apologize, when it was pointed out that their facts were wrong or they were close to crossing over the line of civility.
