Ready to be done with Disney

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh and you had to point out that they’re large.

Fatphobic a-hole.

It was the Dumbo Throw down show!

For some reason it bothered me even more that it was by a ride aimed at small kids.

Again, we’ve been to Disney a lot and have never seen anything close to that.

So recognize that what you saw was not typical.

Search Disney World Fights on YouTube.
It happens more than it should.

I could find you 100 examples of fights all over the place. This is far from a Disney thing.

No one is saying it is and you completely miss the point.

Fights are not all that rare at DW.

If that’s true, I would’ve expected to have seen one, given that we go quite a bit.

It is documented in many videos. And that's true.
Sorry you never saw as I know you think you are the center of the universe.

Ah yes — because it’s in videos online, that must mean it happens all the time.
0
Data analysis isn’t your strong suit, is it?

It happens regularly and is reported as such regularly.
Locally and sometimes nationally.
And people record the fights regularly.
Reality isn't your strong suit is it?

Prove to me it happens regularly. Give me numbers.

Lol. You think Disney releases numbers? “Sweet summer child,” as a Disney addict (maybe you) called another poster.

Companies don’t release incident reports that reflect on them negatively.

I know. I knew you wouldn’t have evidence and are just pulling crap out of your butt.

There are Orlando news stories regularly that report fights inside Disney parks.
Go read them for yourself.
They are not hard to find.
Oh and Peter Pan..
I don't need to do look ups for you.

Again, I asked for quantitative data that compares WDW to attractions with similar attendance.

You know — actual evidence of a trend.

Tell me you took a lame free community college data course and are trying to ridiculously apply it to this discussion without actually saying it. Fool.

The regular reporting of these incidents and the immense security staff Disney employs demonstrates to most reasonable folks that these fights happen often enough and are a Disney corporate concern.
Deny all you want and try to hide behind your joke of a "data ANAL-ysis" argument.

I am a DVC member and grew up 90 minutes from WDW. I have been over 100 times and have NEVER seen a fight.

Maybe you attract trouble.

You have been to Disney 100 times?! I'm so sorry.
I feel pity and compassion for you now. Be well.

I have Florida rental properties in Melbourne Beach so I'm well aware of DW problems and overall Orlando problems. And I've never been in a fight there, but I've seen some really aggressive and unacceptable behavior in DW.
I used to love Wet & Wild and their rope pull ski ride back in the day, but that closed partly because of crime problems along International street too. Universal built something there now.

Are you equally ugly to people who go on the same beach vacation each year?

I started going to WDW the year it opened. At only 90 minutes away, we went there for Girl Scout trips, school trips, Gradnight. We went to their water park, River County, which was groundbreaking at the time. We as teens frequently camped at Fort Wilderness, a truly terrific campground.

It was a favorite place to go to from college at UF. Then we all got married and took our families there. We could go as much as we wanted to $69 during the 3 Season salute pass.

Some of us, like me, even worked there. And bought DVC, making it easy to get a nice 2 bedroom place at the Grand Floridian for cheap. Our kids bring their kids now.

I have a grueling job now and enjoy the escape of Disney. I have done Europe, Scandinavia, etc. But they are different kinds of trips.

Don't feel sorry for me. I can't imagine how bad off you have to be to think of Disney as some sort of hellscape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

We’re not asking Jeff to confirm that you are an attorney. We are asking him to confirm that my +1 wasn’t sock puppeting. There’s more than one of us that thinks you’re an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

No, I am not.

There is no burden of proof in an online discussion of whether Disney sucks. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

No, I am not.

There is no burden of proof in an online discussion of whether Disney sucks. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

When you make a claim - in conversation, on DCUM, in life in general - the burden of proof is absolutely on you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

No, I am not.

There is no burden of proof in an online discussion of whether Disney sucks. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

No. You described how it would work if it was a case and incorrectly stated that I have a burden of proof. I don’t. I’m the defense.

[Anonymous]

I knew this thread would be a shit show the moment I read the title. Sure enough, skip to the end and the lawyers are bickering. Never change, DCUM.

[Anonymous]

This is where you did it, in case you need a reminder:

“ This isn’t a court of law, it’s the Internet. But if it was—and disliking Disney was a tort—

When I have been involved in cases before actual courts of law, both sides present their best case. If you don’t have one, it is common to obfuscate.

I said that the time I went to Disney, there was a fight. I can produce at least 5 witnesses. I have no wish to go back.

You are the defense. You made the claim that fights occur everywhere all the time and Disney is just fine, no different than everywhere else. I should wish to go back!

As such, your argument is a rebuttal. You then have to establish evidence this is within the range of normal life.

As such, YOU need to provide the data that WDW is safer than the venue compared. I claim KSC is safer/has fewer fights. Prove me wrong.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I knew this thread would be a shit show the moment I read the title. Sure enough, skip to the end and the lawyers are bickering. Never change, DCUM.

Nope. It’s one lawyer and two of us who are endlessly amused that the lawyer doesn’t understand basic evidentiary procedure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

No, I am not.

There is no burden of proof in an online discussion of whether Disney sucks. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

No. You described how it would work if it was a case and incorrectly stated that I have a burden of proof. I don’t. I’m the defense.

You described it and I was making fun of you (both). You do have a burden of proof.

In an actual case, if the plaintiff establishes a possibly criminal event occurred, then you have the burden as defense to establish your reasons why the thing the plaintiff established doesn’t count.

Burden-shifting is very common. Happens all the time.

Imagine a case in which a person shoots another person. Murder automatically? No. The prosecutor can establish the person was shot by the defendant. But that is not enough. The burden then shifts to the defense to prove it was justified.

It is an “affirmative defense” that yes, the defendant shot the victim, but there was an exculpatory reason, such as insanity or self-defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I knew this thread would be a shit show the moment I read the title. Sure enough, skip to the end and the lawyers are bickering. Never change, DCUM.

Nope. It’s one lawyer and two of us who are endlessly amused that the lawyer doesn’t understand basic evidentiary procedure.

Lol. Good luck with your Law & Order degree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

No, I am not.

There is no burden of proof in an online discussion of whether Disney sucks. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

No. You described how it would work if it was a case and incorrectly stated that I have a burden of proof. I don’t. I’m the defense.

You described it and I was making fun of you (both). You do have a burden of proof.

In an actual case, if the plaintiff establishes a possibly criminal event occurred, then you have the burden as defense to establish your reasons why the thing the plaintiff established doesn’t count.

Burden-shifting is very common. Happens all the time.

Imagine a case in which a person shoots another person. Murder automatically? No. The prosecutor can establish the person was shot by the defendant. But that is not enough. The burden then shifts to the defense to prove it was justified.

It is an “affirmative defense” that yes, the defendant shot the victim, but there was an exculpatory reason, such as insanity or self-defense.

Prosecution has to initially clear a minimum burden of proof, though, and you clearly haven’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

No, I am not.

There is no burden of proof in an online discussion of whether Disney sucks. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

No. You described how it would work if it was a case and incorrectly stated that I have a burden of proof. I don’t. I’m the defense.

You described it and I was making fun of you (both). You do have a burden of proof.

In an actual case, if the plaintiff establishes a possibly criminal event occurred, then you have the burden as defense to establish your reasons why the thing the plaintiff established doesn’t count.

Burden-shifting is very common. Happens all the time.

Imagine a case in which a person shoots another person. Murder automatically? No. The prosecutor can establish the person was shot by the defendant. But that is not enough. The burden then shifts to the defense to prove it was justified.

It is an “affirmative defense” that yes, the defendant shot the victim, but there was an exculpatory reason, such as insanity or self-defense.

Prosecution has to initially clear a minimum burden of proof, though, and you clearly haven’t.

I can procure 5 witnesses to my negative experience. I could easily prove that to me, Disney sucks.

I would never, though, because I am too smart to litigate my experience. I just won’t go back. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

No, I am not.

There is no burden of proof in an online discussion of whether Disney sucks. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

No. You described how it would work if it was a case and incorrectly stated that I have a burden of proof. I don’t. I’m the defense.

You described it and I was making fun of you (both). You do have a burden of proof.

In an actual case, if the plaintiff establishes a possibly criminal event occurred, then you have the burden as defense to establish your reasons why the thing the plaintiff established doesn’t count.

Burden-shifting is very common. Happens all the time.

Imagine a case in which a person shoots another person. Murder automatically? No. The prosecutor can establish the person was shot by the defendant. But that is not enough. The burden then shifts to the defense to prove it was justified.

It is an “affirmative defense” that yes, the defendant shot the victim, but there was an exculpatory reason, such as insanity or self-defense.

Prosecution has to initially clear a minimum burden of proof, though, and you clearly haven’t.

I can procure 5 witnesses to my negative experience. I could easily prove that to me, Disney sucks.

I would never, though, because I am too smart to litigate my experience. I just won’t go back. Problem solved.

BTW, it’s also pretty fun to share my actual, truthful experience with Disney here. It always leads to Disney Adults losing their minds.

DH and I had a really good friend who married a woman whose favorite thing is the M&M store. I just…can’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You ask him. He can confirm I am an attorney from my previous posts, and probably that I went to HLS if he bothers to go back far enough. I hope he doesn’t waste his time.

You don’t understand. I believe you. It just makes it that much more pathetic that you don’t understand basic evidentiary procedures.

On the court of law that is DCUM? Lol.

No — you were wrong on where burden of proof lies. That’s really it.

No, I am not.

There is no burden of proof in an online discussion of whether Disney sucks. That’s what you don’t seem to understand.

No. You described how it would work if it was a case and incorrectly stated that I have a burden of proof. I don’t. I’m the defense.

You described it and I was making fun of you (both). You do have a burden of proof.

In an actual case, if the plaintiff establishes a possibly criminal event occurred, then you have the burden as defense to establish your reasons why the thing the plaintiff established doesn’t count.

Burden-shifting is very common. Happens all the time.

Imagine a case in which a person shoots another person. Murder automatically? No. The prosecutor can establish the person was shot by the defendant. But that is not enough. The burden then shifts to the defense to prove it was justified.

It is an “affirmative defense” that yes, the defendant shot the victim, but there was an exculpatory reason, such as insanity or self-defense.

Prosecution has to initially clear a minimum burden of proof, though, and you clearly haven’t.

I can procure 5 witnesses to my negative experience. I could easily prove that to me, Disney sucks.

I would never, though, because I am too smart to litigate my experience. I just won’t go back. Problem solved.

Your counsel, that wasn’t the assertion. The assertion was that fights at Disney happen regularly and, in fact, happen more frequently than at other places.