Pete's rants for 8/05/09

[DisneyKevin]

You are okay with the childish name calling? I think Pete and the crew do a great show, but we all know Pete can get a little fired up at times. I think he did just that and stepped a bit out of line. Calling her decision into question were fine, but the childish name calling was a bit much, IMHO.

As we are talking about opinion and not fact...using phrases like "over the top" and "childish" is doing the same thing you are accusing Pete of doing.

Just pointing out that it's easy to do....

 

[dpuck1998]

As we are talking about opinion and not fact...using phrases like "over the top" and "childish" is doing the same thing you are accusing Pete of doing.

Just pointing out that it's easy to do....

I did say IMHO. I agree that it was opinion, so I stated mine. I don't think I stepped over the line, but some may disagree. I honestly think Pete knows it and would be surprised if he didn't address it on the show, I could be wrong. Obviously you already know the answer to that question. My main point was what he did seemed childish and was indeed "name calling" (I don't think that part is opinion). I was far from going on the terror of the podcast....of course that is IMHO.

 

[Madi100]

As we are talking about opinion and not fact...using phrases like "over the top" and "childish" is doing the same thing you are accusing Pete of doing.

Just pointing out that it's easy to do....

I'm not sure you can call it a fact, but maybe rather a good point that you can make a very good point without name calling. If I disagreed with Don, I could start the sentence with, "Hey, Idiot." But, I can make my point just as well by leaving that part out. Besides, I'd hate to hurt his feelings.

 

[dpuck1998]

I'm not sure you can call it a fact, but maybe rather a good point. You can make a very good point without name calling. If I disagreed with Don, I could start the sentence with, "Hey, Idiot." But, I can make my point just as well by leaving that part out. Besides, I'd hate to hurt his feelings.

Somehow I doubt that

I think you just wanted to get that in there so you could claim it was just to make a point!

 

[Madi100]

Somehow I doubt that

I think you just wanted to get that in there so you could claim it was just to make a point!

Now, really, if I wanted to call you a name do you suppose it would be idiot, Copier Repairman?

 

[bsusanmb]

Pete's comments about Meg didn't offend me...he was just being Pete. I thought it was funny. I didn't take any of it serious except that Disney is reacting with a knee jerk and not thinking this through well enough.

 

[Decorated_Dust]

As we are talking about opinion and not fact...using phrases like "over the top" and "childish" is doing the same thing you are accusing Pete of doing.

Just pointing out that it's easy to do....

Keep in mind, though, that Don wasn't saying Pete was childish, but what he said was childish. We all love and respect Pete and think he is above that kind of thing. It would be totally different if I called Pete a male chauvinist for what he said (keep in mind that's NOT what I'm doing, I'm just drawing comparison), because that would be more equivalent to the cleaning lady remark. That would be a personal attack as opposed to criticism of actions (which is totally justified).

Personally, I am sick and tired of name calling in any form from anyone. To me, as soon as name calling enters the debate, the argument becomes garbage. That's probably why I do not enjoy Pete's rants as much as others on the boards (not as much to say it before Nicole and Don, but still). Maybe it stems from name calling I received growing up, or from fatigue from the world in general, or whatever. I just don't like it.

Keep in mind that I adore the podcast and the crew, and look forward to the day that I can meet them in person. My above feelings go for everyone I know and not just the crew. I realize it is easy to lose one's temper, and that what's done is done. However, once one is thinking clearly, the real debate begins, as well as the apologies.

Anyway, who wants cake?

 

[kbelle8995]

Funny I'm more offended by Disney raising their ticket prices at tough economic times than Pete calling that lady the "Cleaning woman"

Don't know why that is? I guess I'm just weird that way.

 

[DisneyKevin]

Keep in mind, though, that Don wasn't saying Pete was childish, but what he said was childish.

This is like telling someone "I'm not saying your fat....I'm saying you look fat".

It's still negative labeling , however you slice it.

All I was doing was pointing out that it's easy do.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

I posted earlier in this thread and have been following it. I just relistened to the entire segment again and have a few thoughts.

While I originally did not completely understand Pete's "cleaning lady" reference, I believe I do now. He was comparing her to being at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak, in terms of qualified individuals that could be promoted to president of WDW. His discussion of Matt Ouimet and his relationship to Jay Rasulo as opposed to Meg Crofton's was very interesting.

I don't know as much of the inner workings of Disney management as Pete does, but I have heard this before. When Ouimet left, I did read that much of it had to do with Rasulo's appointment of Crofton as opposed to Ouimet, who should have been next in line. Pete alluded to the fact that Crofton was somewhat a puppet to Rasulo and this led to her appointment. Obviously I am not in the inner circle to know what their relationship was like, but this is a fact that is out there.

My mother used to work in Human Resources for a large medical company. I was not offended at all by Pete's comments. For me, they were not "hard to listen to" or off the cuff. Instead, I found them to be full of passion about something he deemed so very wrong. I agree with this. The fact that Disney is penalizing those guests who are unable to travel during the non-peak times is absurd and I am glad that they were called out on it.

We all know that it is very difficult to take children out of school, for teachers to take time off of work (unless they accept a dock in pay), and for so many other employees to get a vacation during these times. Just because people are working hard does not mean they should be punished with higher rates for food than someone who has more flexibility in their vacation travels. I will not accept any argument stating that the same entree you order at a restaurant one week during off-season is more expensive to make the very next week during peak. I feel that Disney is cutting corners and seeing how far they can push the dining plan prices. Unfortunately, it looks like many guests are going to grin and bare it. This is something that I will never fully understand.

The fact of the matter is that Disney has become a very greedy company. Just think back to when DU was trying to book the first cruise, the TSM event, etc. and all of the hoops Disney made them jump through. That alone showed it. The quality of their merchandise, in many areas, has also gone downhill and the cleanliness of the parks is not what it used to be many years ago. In fact, my brother took his family to DLR last month. None of them have been to a Disney park before. When they returned, I asked him what he thought of it. His first response was "I was really surprised how dirty the park was. With how everyone talks of Disney being so clean and having great customer service, I was really surprised." Before anyone says that this is a fluke occurence, I have to point out that this is a new guest's first impression of Disney parks. This first impression is what drives future visits and sales. Having a negative experience in these areas is problematic. This never would have happened years ago.

Disney's profits are going down, and there is not as much money in the back to maintain this quality. I do not think that can cut much more without the ordinary guest noticing, and then they would have the PR problem of Disney not being what it used to be. With dozens of sites like this out there, word could spread that the quality is going down and then less people would come. If people are going to shell out a huge chunk of money during a recession, they had better be SURE that what they are getting is worth the sacrifice. Either situation would be bad for Disney, and I figured they chose the lesser of two evils. Disney always leans to the side of quality. I have a feeling that all companies that have been playing by the rules in this situation, like Disney, are caught between a rock and a hard place.

Now, I could be totally wrong, but Disney is already having quality issues with it's feature films. A hit like this at the theme parks would likely cause dire consequences.

While Disney profits have been affected by the nation's recession, they still grossed a large amount of money this year. Still, if they are so concerned about their revenue perhaps they need to look at the obscene discounts that are being offered and see if they really put them ahead. The 4/3 deal was immensely popular and while park attendance increased, their revenue numbers for that quarter decreased 50%. I hate to say it, but it sounds like they lost money here. You can't give so much for free and expect to come out ahead or break even just so that your attendance numbers go up.

I've gone to WDW over 20 times since the early 1990s. I have seen a decrease in the conditions of the parks so yes, the ordinary guests are noticing it.

I've been around long enough to hear many a rant from Pete, and I truly appreciate everything he has to say. I think that it's great that Pete feels so passionately about things. I think it's great for him to say what he believes and to say it to so many people. The whole podcast crew should be proud of themsevles for what they have turned the show into, and I think that they are. It's great to be part of such a community.

With that said, I was offended by the insults that Pete threw at Meg Crofton. I, for one, don't know her, and I don't know what her history is (other than that she's worked her way up with WDW). However, she is a human being. She has worked hard to get where she is at. You don't get to be in her position without a little ambition. And, to insult her by wondering if she still cleans the toilets in her free time is unkind. I for one, have respect for her for achieving such a position in life. She sets a great example for women and for all Americans. I'm sure that Ms. Crofton is responsible for many great things that have happened with the company. You can disagree with what WDW is doing right now. You can be passionate about it. But, it is not necessary to attack the human being that she is. It is not right to insult the years she has put into her career by belittling her.

You are okay with the childish name calling? I think Pete and the crew do a great show, but we all know Pete can get a little fired up at times. I think he did just that and stepped a bit out of line. Calling her decision into question were fine, but the childish name calling was a bit much, IMHO.

I think at one point during the "rant," the cleaning lady reference was used for humor. Comics do it all of the time. I think Pete's criticism was well justified and I never felt like he was destroying a human being or her career in anyway.

People criticize others everyday. I feel that Pete's comments were driving a point that needed to be made home even if some didn't like it. Just my opinion.

Personally, I am sick and tired of name calling in any form from anyone. To me, as soon as name calling enters the debate, the argument becomes garbage. That's probably why I do not enjoy Pete's rants as much as others on the boards (not as much to say it before Nicole and Don, but still). Maybe it stems from name calling I received growing up, or from fatigue from the world in general, or whatever. I just don't like it.

I respectfully disagree here. Just because someone inserts some type of a reference or "name calling" doesn't negate all of the facts, figures, and other points made in a debate. Sure, some things made be considered impolite and I understand that, but in my opinion it doesn't destroy an argument.

One last note I wanted to add that I contacted Meg Crofton last summer about the closing of Pleasure Island, specifically the Adventurer's Club. Not once did I receive an email or letter in response, let alone a phone call. As much as I dislike Kevin Lansberry, at least his assistant called me when I wrote a similar letter to him.

Just my two cents.

 

[Decorated_Dust]

I respectfully disagree here. Just because someone inserts some type of a reference or "name calling" doesn't negate all of the facts, figures, and other points made in a debate. Sure, some things made be considered impolite and I understand that, but in my opinion it doesn't destroy an argument.

We'll agree to disagree. I was just stating that this is how I feel. I don't like name-calling anytime anywhere, and whenever it happens, it decreases my respect for the person. I just wanted Pete to be careful not to alienate people like me who think name-calling and personal attacks is wrong whether the person hears it or not.

This is like telling someone "I'm not saying your fat....I'm saying you look fat".

It's still negative labeling , however you slice it.

All I was doing was pointing out that it's easy do

I agree with you...sort of. I do think that negative labeling and even name-calling is VERY easy to do. When I was a telecounselor, when I called someone and I was tired and frustrated, I complained about them to the girl next to me as soon as I hung up. I can tell you're going for the "plank eye" argument, which I agree with, especially since I am guilty. However, I think we should still acknowledge when something goes too far so we can be better at preventing it from happening again. We have self-control for a reason.

I think there is a vast difference between negative labeling and name calling. I think what Pete did was different than both your and my examples in that it was a "shoot to kill" attack. The example you use might be meant well, even though it was insensitive and negative. Is Meg Crofton likely a puppet for Jay Russulo? Yes. Is she making awful decisions? Yes. Should she be insulted in a derogatory way? No. Every successful woman I know would be insulted and hurt by being called a "cleaning lady" in that it is often used to say that a woman does not know what she is doing and does not belong in a position of power, it's just the most insulting possible way to do it. Crofton likely does know what she is doing, but is just making bad decisions that are likely not totally hers.

I don't know. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously. Like I said, this is how I feel and not a morality judgment on the podcast crew. I think they are fantastic people who are imperfect human beings just like everyone else. I just thought they deserved to know how I feel, since honesty is one of the best things about the show. It doesn't hurt to try and work on some things, that's all. Can we agree to disagree and have an Entourage-style "hug-it-out?"

 

[DaParkers]

This is like telling someone "I'm not saying your fat....I'm saying you look fat".

It's still negative labeling , however you slice it.

All I was doing was pointing out that it's easy do.

For some people, it's easy to steal something if someone isn't looking. Still doesn't make it right.

 

[DisneyKevin]

I agree with you...sort of. I do think that negative labeling and even name-calling is VERY easy to do. When I was a telecounselor, when I called someone and I was tired and frustrated, I complained about them to the girl next to me as soon as I hung up. I can tell you're going for the "plank eye" argument, which I agree with, especially since I am guilty. However, I think we should still acknowledge when something goes too far so we can be better at preventing it from happening again. We have self-control for a reason.

I think there is a vast difference between negative labeling and name calling. I think what Pete did was different than both your and my examples in that it was a "shoot to kill" attack. The example you use might be meant well, even though it was insensitive and negative. Is Meg Crofton likely a puppet for Jay Russulo? Yes. Is she making awful decisions? Yes. Should she be insulted in a derogatory way? No. Every successful woman I know would be insulted and hurt by being called a "cleaning lady" in that it is often used to say that a woman does not know what she is doing and does not belong in a position of power, it's just the most insulting possible way to do it. Crofton likely does know what she is doing, but is just making bad decisions that are likely not totally hers.

Keep in mind that I'm only saying these things because I love the show and don't want you guys to lose any credibility. I have just been a victim of these attacks before, and I'm sure you and Pete have, too.

I don't know. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously. Having Asperger's tends to attract bullies like honey attracts bears, so I am extra sensitive. Can we agree to disagree and have an Entourage-style "hug-it-out?"

I'm not sure what a "plank eye argument" is...so I'm nout sure if I was going for that or not.

I also have no reason to "hug it out" as I really have no part in this and nothing to apologize for....I'm just discussing it with you.

I can not and will not suggest that I am apologizing for what Pete said. It's not my place to do that, nor am I suggesting it's even necessary. He's very elequent and capable of speaking for himself.

With this.....I'm pretty much done discussing this.

 

[dpuck1998]

I'm not sure what a "plank eye argument" is...so I'm nout sure if I was going for that or not.

I also have no reason to "hug it out" as I really have no part in this and nothing to apologize for....I'm just discussing it with you.

I can not and will not suggest that I am apologizing for what Pete said. It's not my place to do that, nor am I suggesting it's even necessary. He's very elequent and capable of speaking for himself.

With this.....I'm pretty much done discussing this.

What about that hug? hu? c'mom....give it up.....

 

[*NikkiBell*]

I think there is a vast difference between negative labeling and name calling. I think what Pete did was different than both your and my examples in that it was a "shoot to kill" attack. The example you use might be meant well, even though it was insensitive and negative. Is Meg Crofton likely a puppet for Jay Russulo? Yes. Is she making awful decisions? Yes. Should she be insulted in a derogatory way? No. Every successful woman I know would be insulted and hurt by being called a "cleaning lady" in that it is often used to say that a woman does not know what she is doing and does not belong in a position of power, it's just the most insulting possible way to do it. Crofton likely does know what she is doing, but is just making bad decisions that are likely not totally hers.

I don't know. Maybe I'm taking this too seriously. Like I said, this is how I feel and not a morality judgment on the podcast crew. I think they are fantastic people who are imperfect human beings just like everyone else. It doesn't hurt to try and work on some things, that's all. Having Asperger's tends to attract bullies like honey attracts bears, so I am extra sensitive, especially toward a show I adore. Can we agree to disagree and have an Entourage-style "hug-it-out?"

I am a successful woman and didn't see the comments as being even remotely sexist in anyway as described above. I have never heard the phrase before so maybe I am a bit sheltered. Wouldn't it hold the same implications if it was "cleaning man" or janitor?

I don't think Crofton has as much experience or know how as Ouimet. Does she know what she is doing? In my opinion, she does not. She's caused a lot of downfalls in the company especially over the past two years. If you want to say that they're bad decisions, so be it. If someone wants to say she doesn't know what she's doing, so be it. In the end, I think most of us can agree that the decision regarding the dining plan is not a very good one.

I don't think my comments above were meant in any deragotory way. I was just partaking in the discussion. We're not fighting so there's no reason to have a hug-it-out and move on (here's one anyway lol ). I love discussions like this.

 

[DisneyKevin]

For some people, it's easy to steal something if someone isn't looking. Still doesn't make it right.[/QUOT


I agree completely...stealing isnt right.

I'm not certain I see what that has to do with anything thats been said..

I was simply pointing out that I thought someone was doing the same thing that they thought was wrong when someone else did it.

 

[DisneyKevin]

What about that hug? hu? c'mom....give it up.....

If you want a hug...just "man up" and admit it.

 

[dpuck1998]

If you want a hug...just "man up" and admit it.

:kicks dirt: awww...ok....

 

[Madi100]

I posted earlier in this thread and have been following it. I just relistened to the entire segment again and have a few thoughts.

While I originally did not completely understand Pete's "cleaning lady" reference, I believe I do now. He was comparing her to being at the bottom of the totem pole, so to speak, in terms of qualified individuals that could be promoted to president of WDW. His discussion of Matt Ouimet and his relationship to Jay Rasulo as opposed to Meg Crofton's was very interesting.

I don't know as much of the inner workings of Disney management as Pete does, but I have heard this before. When Ouimet left, I did read that much of it had to do with Rasulo's appointment of Crofton as opposed to Ouimet, who should have been next in line. Pete alluded to the fact that Crofton was somewhat a puppet to Rasulo and this led to her appointment. Obviously I am not in the inner circle to know what their relationship was like, but this is a fact that is out there.

My mother used to work in Human Resources for a large medical company. I was not offended at all by Pete's comments. For me, they were not "hard to listen to" or off the cuff. Instead, I found them to be full of passion about something he deemed so very wrong. I agree with this. The fact that Disney is penalizing those guests who are unable to travel during the non-peak times is absurd and I am glad that they were called out on it.

We all know that it is very difficult to take children out of school, for teachers to take time off of work (unless they accept a dock in pay), and for so many other employees to get a vacation during these times. Just because people are working hard does not mean they should be punished with higher rates for food than someone who has more flexibility in their vacation travels. I will not accept any argument stating that the same entree you order at a restaurant one week during off-season is more expensive to make the very next week during peak. I feel that Disney is cutting corners and seeing how far they can push the dining plan prices. Unfortunately, it looks like many guests are going to grin and bare it. This is something that I will never fully understand.

The fact of the matter is that Disney has become a very greedy company. Just think back to when DU was trying to book the first cruise, the TSM event, etc. and all of the hoops Disney made them jump through. That alone showed it. The quality of their merchandise, in many areas, has also gone downhill and the cleanliness of the parks is not what it used to be many years ago. In fact, my brother took his family to DLR last month. None of them have been to a Disney park before. When they returned, I asked him what he thought of it. His first response was "I was really surprised how dirty the park was. With how everyone talks of Disney being so clean and having great customer service, I was really surprised." Before anyone says that this is a fluke occurence, I have to point out that this is a new guest's first impression of Disney parks. This first impression is what drives future visits and sales. Having a negative experience in these areas is problematic. This never would have happened years ago.





While Disney profits have been affected by the nation's recession, they still grossed a large amount of money this year. Still, if they are so concerned about their revenue perhaps they need to look at the obscene discounts that are being offered and see if they really put them ahead. The 4/3 deal was immensely popular and while park attendance increased, their revenue numbers for that quarter decreased 50%. I hate to say it, but it sounds like they lost money here. You can't give so much for free and expect to come out ahead or break even just so that your attendance numbers go up.

I've gone to WDW over 20 times since the early 1990s. I have seen a decrease in the conditions of the parks so yes, the ordinary guests are noticing it.





I think at one point during the "rant," the cleaning lady reference was used for humor. Comics do it all of the time. I think Pete's criticism was well justified and I never felt like he was destroying a human being or her career in anyway.

People criticize others everyday. I feel that Pete's comments were driving a point that needed to be made home even if some didn't like it. Just my opinion.



I respectfully disagree here. Just because someone inserts some type of a reference or "name calling" doesn't negate all of the facts, figures, and other points made in a debate. Sure, some things made be considered impolite and I understand that, but in my opinion it doesn't destroy an argument.

One last note I wanted to add that I contacted Meg Crofton last summer about the closing of Pleasure Island, specifically the Adventurer's Club. Not once did I receive an email or letter in response, let alone a phone call. As much as I dislike Kevin Lansberry, at least his assistant called me when I wrote a similar letter to him.

Just my two cents.

It's hard to disagree with your friends. It's easier to do with strangers. I think that Pete went too far with his rant. I think that if you have a valid point, you can get it across without insulting the person. It's like with a political debate. Nothing turns me off quicker than if the person starts throwing insults about what the other person has done wrong and attacking their character. Same with the rant. I'm not a cleaning lady, I don't work in HR. Heck, I don't even have a job. So, to somehow identify with the person he attacked, I can't do.

You are really upset with the price increases. I think they are justified. The cost of food has gone up this past year. I don't think you are wrong for what you believe, and I don't believe I have to say that I am wrong. We just have different feelings and no one is really right or wrong.

 

[*NikkiBell*]

Lovefest alert!!!!

I'm so telling on you, Don!