Search form

Walt Disney: Scumbag?

147 posts / 0 new
Last post
Walt Disney: Scumbag?

[All of the following are quotes from the provided links.]

The reality behind Disney’s civic and political life is very different from the benevolent illusions projected onto big and small screens around the world.

In fact, Disney was one of the primary figures in the Hollywood blacklisting era and had a long professional association with fascist, anti-Semitic and organized crime elements.

Disney was the son of a Christian evangelist and was very anti-labor in his business dealings. (This was typical of Hollywood studio chiefs at the time.) These attitudes combined with resentment of the power of many of the Jewish American studio heads. Perhaps because of these views, Disney apparently began attending American Nazi party meetings in the company of Gunther Lessing, Disney’s attorney and chief advisor on labor issues. "During the time Disney helped organize the independent filmmakers against the industry’s mainstream, he also was accompanying Lessing to American Nazi party meetings and rallies.

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f301.html

In 1933, the German American Bund was founded by Fritz Kuhn. Kuhn was evidently quite a character--he had met Hitler in the early thirties and reportedly was profoundly loathed by the Nazi leader. An association of German immigrants to America, the Bund had a definite pro-Nazi slant. Disney animator Art Babbitt claimed his boss had a strong interest in, if not outright sympathy for, the Bund:

"In the immediate years before we entered the War there was a small, but fiercely loyal, I suppose legal, following of the Nazi party . . . There were open meetings, anybody could attend and I wanted to see what was going on myself. On more than one occasion I observed Walt Disney and [Disney's lawyer] Gunther Lessing there, along with a lot of prominent Nazi-afflicted Hollywood personalities. Disney was going to meetings all the time."

The German filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl, whose documentaries in the mid-30s had helped to glorify the Nazis, claimed that "after Kristallnacht [1938], she approached every studio in Hollywood looking for work. No studio head would even screen her movies except Walt Disney. He told her he admired her work but if it became known that he was considering hiring her, it would damage his reputation."

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mdisneyfascist.html

2 Jul 1941 Variety runs an ad by Walt Disney accusing the leaders of the animators' strike to be employing "Communistic agitation."

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/business/walt-disney/

Disney played a pivotal role in helping to focus the attention of HUAC on the motion picture industry. "One of Disney’s first official duties as vice-president of the MPA was to send a letter to an arch-conservative U.S. Senator, Robert R. Reynolds (D-North Carolina), dated March 7, 1944, urging HUAC to intensify its presence in Hollywood. Walt wanted a fell congressional investigation regarding the infiltration of communism into the film community, for the ‘flagrant manner in which the motion picture industrialists of Hollywood have been coddling Communists and totalitarian-minded groups working in the industry for the dissemination of un-American ideas and beliefs.’

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f301.html

24 Oct 1947 Walt Disney testifies before the House Committee on Un-American Activities. He identifies Herbert K. Sorrell, William Pomerance, Maurice Howard, and David Hilberman as probable Communists.

HUAC: Can you name any other individuals that were active at the time of the strike that you believe in your opinion are Communists?
WALT DISNEY: Well, I feel that there is one artist in my plant, that came in there, he came in about 1938, and he sort of stayed in the background, he wasn't too active, but he was the real brains of this, and I believe he is a Communist. His name is David Hilberman.
HUAC: How is it spelled?
WALT DISNEY: H-I-L-B-E-R-M-A-N, I believe. I looked into his record and I found that: number 1, that he had no religion, and number 2, that he had spent considerable time at the Moscow Art Theatre, studying art direction or something.

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/business/walt-disney/

Throughout the thirties, up to and including The Great Dictator, [Charlie Chaplin] made highly entertaining movies infused with populism. His active campaign for a second front against the Axis powers during World War II and his pleas for the curtailment of anticommunist propaganda angered Disney, who had once so idolized Chaplin.

In 1952, at the height of the blacklist era, while Chaplin was on a six-month tout of England and Europe, the Immigration and Naturalization Service barred his return to the United States under a code denying an alien entry on grounds of morals or Communist affiliation.

Although Walt declined to comment publicly on the matter of Chaplin’s exile, in private he told one of his ‘Nine Old Men’ studio loyalists that the country was better off without ‘the little Commie.’"

During the course of the HUAC hearings, Disney’s personal testimony lent considerable momentum to the proceedings. "Disney’s testimony helped strengthen Brewer’s industry-wide blacklist. The mere whisper of a name was enough to eliminate someone from consideration for a job. Because no proof was required, nor any defense short of confession acceptable, the assumption of guilt until proven innocent replaced the constitutional rights of everyone accused, and plunged America into one of its darkest political periods."

http://www.spitfirelist.com/f301.html

The obvious motivation, but damning to Disney’s character, is that he testified to finally have revenge. The two names that he gave as having links to the Communist Party were two men who had succeeded in destroying Disney’s control over his studio. The strike had left a lasting mark on Disney, and it was no secret the hatred he harboured for years for these individuals. Disney had a chance to get even with these two men, and he took it. Sorrell died that same year of a heart attack after his union disbanded because of the blacklist. Hilberman too was blacklisted and forced to move to New York to work for a new cartoon production company that went out of business after it was branded to have connections with Communism (Eliot 193-194). Disney was never bothered by the Screen Cartoonist’s Guild again and finally had his revenge. In doing so he ruined two men’s lives and helped strengthen the cause for the blacklist in Hollywood.

The strike and testimony before HUAC had a large impact on Disney’s relationship with his animated features. Disney’s hatred for unions was portrayed in Dumbo with the scene containing the drunk and rowdy clowns. They speak of forming a union and demanding rights and benefits. Disney was not subtle at all about comparing his workers on strike to a bunch of drunken clowns, and his message to the public about unions was apparent.

http://www.stolaf.edu/depts/cis/wp/langes/UncleWalt.html

Utter nonsense. This kind of tripe takes nuggets of truth (Disney did testify before HUAC, for example) and extrapolates all kinds of nonsense from them. For example, the last link leads to a page that starts off with this ridiculous assertion:

"Walt Disney was born in 1890 to a woman named Señora Isabelle Zamora."

Considering most of the rest of what's said is hearsay and speculation, it's not worth commenting on.

I'm surprised there's no mention of Walt's frozen head anywhere in there... :rolleyes:

Does anyone really imagine the inner politics of any corporation to be a democracy? Mussolini's original Fascist Manifesto simply put forth the concept of using the corporation as a model for how a country should be governed, with war as their main industry.

And now that the U.S. basically has a corporate board of directors in power, we're seeing exactly that. With the blind faith of religious fundamentalism behind them. -And I'm talking about both the religious right and the corporate suck-ups. But I digress...

I recently bought the Tomorrowland 2 disc set. Disc one is 50s futurism in its purest form. And yep, there's Werner Van Braun explaining the theories behind the rockets he designed for old uncle Adolph. But really, the focus for me was what the Disney animators could do when relieved from the shackles of cuteness they usually operated under on the features.

Disc two contains pro-nuke and pro-spy, er uh, "weather" satelite features. And then there's the pitch for Disney's original concept for Epcot Center. Or Dis-topia, as I like to call it. This is where Disney employees were to live-- both those who worked at the Florida theme park, and those who were to work in the "industrial complex" whose function was unspecified.

These employees would never be unobserved while in Epcot. They were to leave their cars in an underground garage and either walk or take the monorails while inside the compound. The pitch, of course, was that it would be the model community of the future. But there was a very distinct undercurrent running through it-- these people would have no real freedom.

At one point, Disney said that Epcot would be at the cutting edge of both fashion and interior design. Evryone who lived there would sport the latest in fashion and furnishings. It made me wonder how such a thing would be enforced. Of course, Disney passed on before his dreams came to fruition, and Epcot became the corporate-sponsored white elephant it is today.

We need to remember that the Hitler was Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1938, and the Nazi's were our allies until pretty shortly before they started Blitzkreiging Europe. And to me, Nazification and Hitlerization take focus away from the basic fact that Fascism is simply corporatism applied to politics.

But I have to say, without having heard about any of the above, watching that disc gave me the distinct feeling that Uncle Walt wasn't quite right.

Geeze, who pulled my string?

the last link leads to a page that starts off with this ridiculous assertion:

"Walt Disney was born in 1890 to a woman named Señora Isabelle Zamora."

Considering most of the rest of what's said is hearsay and speculation, it's not worth commenting on.

I'm surprised there's no mention of Walt's frozen head anywhere in there...

But I didn't include any frozen head or birthday entries. Would you care to refute anything that I actually did present?

For example, did Disney not meet with Riefenstahl when no other Hollywood producer would? (It is well documented that he did.) Why would he meet with the world's most despised film director unless he admired her Nazi propaganda films?

Did Disney not "send a letter to ... Robert R. Reynolds ... dated March 7, 1944, urging HUAC to intensify its presence in Hollywood," which encouraged the witchhunts?

Did Disney not tell HUAC that he thought two of his animation artists were communists and "had no religion," which ruined their careers?

To anticipate the inevitable defense, yes, Walt Disney revolutionized animation and created things that children love. This does not mean that he is automatically exempt from any criticism. His fun cartoons do not automatically negate the horrible things he did or might have done. Thomas Jefferson, for another example, was one of our greatest founders. Does that mean that we can't bring up the fact that he was a slaveowner and - some would say - rapist, and criticize him for it?

Harvey--
You're really peeing in the pot here.

The man has got his warts--any kind of reading about his history reveals that.
The more you read the deeper the warts go.

However, what does it mean? That he's not the person we all think he is?
Pal, that goes for each and everyone of us. We ALL have our warts, idiosyncracies, faults, skeletons in our closets......we all have those things.
We are all allowed our flaws, right?

If ANY of what you've posted is true, does it do one thing: affect the legacy of the man's work? There's a LOT of positives surrounding Disney, far, far more than there are negatives.

Sure, he had to walk over some people to get where he got, and probably had some "unique" (or at least eccentric) views--but so what?
Any creative person does. I have them too.
You as well.
I've dealt with people harshly in business and in private life, and I've been unfair to people too.
From what you've read here of my stuff--does that make me a bad person?
If you knew the details, would it make me a bad person--or does it just take a general blanket notion/suggestion?

Or does that only happen from a certain perspective?
None of what you've drawn attention to says that Disney is an avowed proponent of any of these things. They suggest and infer a lot, and lean towards other things. Things that have some grey areas to them. Disney's harsh towards employees, and doesn't like Unions--hey, I would be as well if it was a company I poured my heart and soul into. A union of other people can threaten that dream and why so I, you or a guy like Disney be beholden to them if they want to dictate that dream? There's no economy with resentment in the world.
One can also say that what one person sees as evil or sinister, another person can see as having some understandable motivations behind it.
Its all a matter perspective.

Those kinds of things you cite above just aren't rolled out for scrutiny with you and me, like they are with someone like Disney.
When one takes into account a person's sexual, political and/or other behavioural proclivities, does ANYONE pass sterling muster?
Does ANY of it effect the final element: the legacy of Disney himself?

Want my answer? I'm going to Disneyland next week, and I sure as shootin' ain't gonna be thinking how the guy liked Nazis.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

The man has got his warts--any kind of reading about his history reveals that.
The more you read the deeper the warts go.

However, what does it mean? That he's not the person we all think he is?
Pal, that goes for each and everyone of us. We ALL have our warts, idiosyncracies, faults, skeletons in our closets......we all have those things.
We are all allowed our flaws, right?

To anticipate the inevitable defense, yes, Walt Disney revolutionized animation and created things that children love. This does not mean that he is automatically exempt from any criticism. His fun cartoons do not automatically negate the horrible things he did or might have done. Thomas Jefferson, for another example, was one of our greatest founders. Does that mean that we can't bring up the fact that he was a slaveowner and - some would say - rapist, and criticize him for it?

There's your answer, Ken.

Because all of us have faults, we can't discuss Disney's?
And these aren't faults like leaving the toilet seat up.

Really, he seemed to be a fascinating mass of contradictions. On the one hand, he was a ruthless bussinessman. By some accounts (Tex Avery, for one) Disney hired all the real talent out from under the other studios, so all anybody else had left was the in-betweeners. But then Disney Studios got amazingly cramped, and many talents were left with very little to do. So they left.

On the other hand, there was the incident that happened during Fantasia. There were just weeks to go until the release, and the last tracking shot still hadn't completed. This was an extremely complex shot-- more complicated than anything that had been done. But Disney had them dismantle all of the glass paintings, camera tracks, etc, and evacuate the studio for a day so he could use it to play Badminton. Hard to reconcile the two.

Let's not forget that Disney himself wasn't that good as an animator-- which he openly admitted. And for my money, the Fleischer brothers Superman cartoons eclipsed anything Disney had done to date.

There's your answer, Ken.

Because all of us have faults, we can't discuss Disney's?
And these aren't faults like leaving the toilet seat up.

So a guy that has some awkward political leanings and hard business practises get's lumped in with a slave-owner/rapist and the world's most notorious genocidal maniac.

Might as well add me to that lot then too, right?
If you knew my life, like you "know " Disney's you wouldn't hesitate, given your above reasoning.

Lemme add something to your argument--a tangent if you will.
A guy by the name of Todd McFarlane.

If you've read any press on the man from the past 10 years you'd come away with the notion that he's pretty much a complete jerk.

But I know otherwise.
See, I've met and worked with the man, I know him personally.

All those stories about him treating people badly? I don't doubt them.
Did he treat me badly? Not at all--he was extremely gracious and helpful. The epitome of a kind and decent person--someone with some real core to their character.
In light of the negative press he often gets, guess what view I have of him?

Todd's a sweetie. I respect the MAN--but I don't respect some of what he's done. He's a good guy, but he's made some bad choices. Sounds like any other person, right?

Same thing with Disney.
( Heck, even the recent spats with Charles Zembillas of Animation Nation--I don't think the guy is a BAD person, I do think he's made some bad calls. It'd be easy to be unfair and just lambast the guy, but if he does right, I'll call it right. THAT is fair, and he (and me) deserves that much)

Now in the scheme of things, does MY view matter in the world?
You might think not, but its IS another perspective. One that says that the assumptions are not so black and white. In the end, what does it matter?
That you, or someone else is keeping score of all the ills of the world?

When we are all making ills of some kind, and bringing boons into the world as well........dragging around that kind of leaden baggage that SOMEONE'S done baaaaaaaaaaad just doesn't make any sense. Okay, so he can be called a scumbag--what's next?
In the greater scheme of things even evil things have a part in building the world.
Why waste your time digging dirt when you can build something instead?

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

But I didn't include any frozen head or birthday entries. Would you care to refute anything that I actually did present?

When you provide a link in support of your argument, and the page that link leads to starts off with a huge factual error, it calls into question all the information contained therein, and therefore the support for your point. (BTW, I was careful in my first post to avoid directing my comments specifically at you. Sorry you chose to take them as though they were.)

To anticipate the inevitable defense, yes, Walt Disney revolutionized animation and created things that children love. This does not mean that he is automatically exempt from any criticism.

Who said he was?

.

.

When you provide a link in support of your argument, and the page that link leads to starts off with a huge factual error, it calls into question all the information contained therein, and therefore the support for your point.

I recognize that there are factual errors in Dark Prince. There are factual errors in any non-fiction book. The relevant question is, are there factual errors in the information I presented, rather than in the entirety of their sources?
Are you going to refute the information I presented, or are you going to throw the baby out with the dirty Band-Aid on his finger?

Folks, for more information about the book, Walt Disney: Hollywood's Dark Prince, please see the following article.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood%27s_dark_prince
Please note that we aren't discussing the highly disputed citations, but the citations that are widely regarded as true, if unfamiliar to the general public.

(BTW, I was careful in my first post to avoid directing my comments specifically at you. Sorry you chose to take them as though they were.)

I'm sorry you felt that I took your response personally. I did not, and - re-reading my post - I see no evidence that I did.

P.S.
Thanks for participating everyone. After this thread I may have run out of historical topics with which we can have heated debates. There's surprisingly little controversy in animation history.

we already covered Disney's pathetic attempt to suck up to to Joe McCarthy back on the Animation Trivia thread:

http://forums.awn.com/showthread.php?t=65&page=23&highlight=trivia

seems to have gotten buried in all the childish antics by a certain member

Walt was who he was, he never made apologies for his views...why should we.

He made a mark in animation, he may not have been an admirable man.

So Harvey what else do you have up your sleeve to stir things up?

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

we already covered Disney's pathetic attempt to suck up to to Joe McCarthy back on the Animation Trivia thread

Excuse me if I can't find one instance of the words "Disney," "McCarthy," and "HUAC" within the posts on that page.

And, even if I had, I'd hardly classify a mention of Disney's love affair with McCarthy in a trivia thread as "covering" the entirely of Disney's antisocial and anti-labor (anti-animator) activities.

he never made apologies for his views...why should we

Right, why apologize for associating with Nazis and crafting witchhunts against animators when you can merely ignore history and bury your misdeeds?

While we're at it, why the hell did Mel Gibson apologize for making racist remarks. I mean, for God's sake, the man was in The Road Warrior. Doesn't that mean he can do any terrible thing he wants to?

And George W. Bush hugged a fireman at the WTC site, so doesn't he deserve to start all the wars he wants to?
C'mon, people, HE. HUGGED. A. FIREMAN.

Hey Harvey I don't say what he fostered was right. I just don't feel a need to apologize for him. I never ask Mel to apologize, and no matter what Bush has to say in the future he can never redeem himself with me. I probably hate him more than you do. What he is doing is based on greed and the single vision of his corporate cronies, at the expense of the little man.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Besides I never idolized Walt or his movies. Most of them were drivel.

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Besides I never idolized Walt or his movies. Most of them were drivel.

Uncle Walt's skill was amassing and contolling creative talent. As such, he is animation history's greatest producer. The plots of his cartoons might be "drivel" (which is not necessarily bad), but the animation within them is not.

I'm sorry you felt that I took your response personally. I did not, and - re-reading my post - I see no evidence that I did.

Then you didn't look very closely:

But I didn't include any frozen head or birthday entries. Would you care to refute anything that I actually did present?

I still don't see it, dude.
I'm afraid you're going to have to specify exactly what and how I took it personally.

Uncle Walt's skill was amassing and contolling creative talent. As such, he is animation history's greatest producer. The plots of his cartoons might be "drivel" (which is not necessarily bad), but the animation within them is not.

So Harvey is this just a debating team exercise? Most of have said we are aware of Walt's history, and we don't justify or defend it. But you seem to...where exactly do you stand?

Pat Hacker, Visit Scooter's World.

Most of have said we are aware of Walt's history, and we don't justify or defend it.

I have no problem with people justifying, defending, condemning, or not caring.
What is ridiculous is when people attack you SIMPLY FOR ASKING THE QUESTION.

where exactly do you stand?

When I end the title of my topic with a question mark, It means I don't have an answer. This should be obvious.

If I had the answer, I'd title it "Disney: Scumbag!" or Disney: Not Scumbag!" or "Disney: Genius but Flawed Individual" or Disney: A Product of His Time."

***edited***

***edited***[/B][/SIZE]

?
20? 50?

It's pretty obvious why you were banned from the Animation Nation forums. No matter how many warnings you receive, you are determined to continue the personal attacks.

***edited***

Phacker is right. Why is it that even remotely controversial topics in next to no time turn into debate club bickering matches between Harvey Human and DSB? To tell the truth, seeing either of you participate in lengthy debates here at this board is a sure indication for me to not spare them another look. All we get in the end is expert flingings of accusations, master-class finickiness and oh-so intellectual name-calling, all the while the likes of Mr Meriwether (-who made my ignore list a long time ago; I haven’t forgotten lesharc-) stand a little off, whooping and fanning the flame(s).
I very much wish you’d restrict celebrating your superior rhetoric to your personal correspondence.

come on ape, why was that last one edited out?? are you just arbitrarily editing anything that might upset a certain someone, no matter how impersonal.
...why not just turn this into the HH board, and anyone who disagrees is silenced?? (after HH gets his little snipes in of course).
..get ready for fees and a new kakhi logo, folks

come on ape, why was that last one edited out?? are you just arbitrarily editing anything that might upset a certain someone, no matter how impersonal.
...why not just turn this into the HH board, and anyone who disagrees is silenced?? (after HH gets his little snipes in of course).
..get ready for fees and a new kakhi logo, folks

Mr. Meriwether, I edited your previous post because it was simply an attempt to anger AWN members. If I simply edited out the offending insults, your post would haven't have made any sense, so I decided to edit out the entire post. I don't play favorites and have edited out language and insults from Harvey and others in the past.

If members have disagreements between each other about the topic, thats fine. If people keep calling each other names, or post just to inflame other members, I will continue to edit out those statements.

Thank you,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Ape, I disagree with you on the post's content, and on favouritism (read the trivia thread to see HH's unedited petulant sabotaging of things when the focus is taken away from him) but it's your board.
..like I said earlier, far too much tight ass attitude for a bunch of guys you'd expect to have a sense of humour.

drinks for everyone

.

.

What's up with you, Meriwether? Do you act like this all the time, or just over the internet?

yes Billy.

PS...That's MISTER Meriwether if you dont mind.

Ape, I disagree with you on the post's content, and on favouritism (read the trivia thread to see HH's unedited petulant sabotaging of things when the focus is taken away from him) but it's your board.
..like I said earlier, far too much tight ass attitude for a bunch of guys you'd expect to have a sense of humour.

drinks for everyone

I was not a moderator at the time of the trivia thread Meriwether so you can only really base your opinion that I play favorites on this thread.

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

I haven’t forgotten lesharc

Le Sharc? I think I remember him.
Wasn't that the forum member who caused all the chaos by saying nonsensical things and attacking people?
Then two days after he was banned, the forum was hacked into and destroyed?

I might not be remembering it correctly. Anyway, it takes you back.

Le Sharc? I think I remember him.
Wasn't that the forum member who caused all the chaos by saying nonsensical things and attacking people?

That's certainly nothing YOU would ever do, right?..let's take a little trip back shall we?? (unless his lackey decides to delete the whole thing)

http://forums.awn.com/showthread.php?t=65&highlight=trivia

each page more and more revealing of the real you...I know the truth is painful, but admit it you must.

dr benway

(unless his lackey decides to delete the whole thing)
...
far too much tight ass attitude

I'm surprised that Meriwether called Ape a "tight-ass lackey" and got away with it! :eek:

.

.

Are you going to refute the information I presented, or are you going to throw the baby out with the dirty Band-Aid on his finger?

I already said what I have to say about the information you presented in my first post.

I'm sorry you felt that I took your response personally. I did not, and - re-reading my post - I see no evidence that I did.

Then you didn't look very closely:

But I didn't include any frozen head or birthday entries. Would you care to refute anything that I actually did present?

source material?

do you have any liks to primary source material that supports your accusations?

for the one person on this board who doesn't seem to know how to search a thread properly, I will cut and paste the quote from the thread JUST for you (along with the link)...I can understand you missing it the first time, Herman old boy, as you seemed to miss a lot during your pouty period back then (read the entire Trivia thread and you'll see what I mean)...like I said, this topic has already been covered, and by better men than Hershel Hummer:

so, I was tripping nostalgically through this thread when I noticed one of my early posers had not been answered (which animator did Walt peg as a communist to the gents at HUAC because said artist
a) had no religion and
b) studied art direction for a while at the Moscow Theatre of Art?)

..the answer of course is Dave Hilberman..check out more of der fuhrer Disney's hilarious (if it weren't so insane) rant at:

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6458

for the one person on this board who doesn't seem to know how to search a thread properly, ...

For the one person on this board who doesn't seem to know how to link to a thread properly, or paste a quote properly, ... huh?

For the one person on this board who doesn't seem to know how to link to a thread properly, or paste a quote properly, ... huh?

I don't know how to do EITHER of those things properly, and I'm getting pretty damn tired of being sleighted around here. It's like my shortcomings don't even EXIST!

gee Hairless Hercules, are you STILL having trouble??...my original link went right to the page in question (just had to scroll down sonny), but when even that was beyond you, I simply cut and pasted...and now you get all snarky (gonna take your ball and go home again??)...kids today

.

.

gee Hairless Hercules, are you STILL having trouble??...my original link went right to the page in question (just had to scroll down sonny), but when even that was beyond you, I simply cut and pasted...and now you get all snarky (gonna take your ball and go home again??)...kids today

Oh, I get it now, Dr. Grumpyfumbler.
When you paste a quote, you have to put quotation marks around it or put it in a quote box or put the date above it or else the ordinary reader, who skims your nonsense looking for some substance, will think it's part of your current oblique ramblings, Ms. Pimplybalder.
And that question is not at the link you provided, probably because some of us have a different number of posts-per-page specified in our settings.
I know two years is an awfully short time in which to figure out a message board and the internet and grown-up communication, but you shouldn't blame others for your density. It's your responsibility to make yourself understood, Prof. Cheesedoodlelover.

But thanks for proving my point: Your two-year-old trivia question covers the topic of Disney's shady history no better than a Burger King napkin covers your immense belly. :rolleyes: (Smiley buttons are on the right-hand side, Mrs. Twoyearoldgrudgeholder.)

Anyhow, I know you'd like to make every thread about you vs. me, but let's try to stick to the topic. thanks, Miss Lazyfumer.

temper temper sweetheart, or your parents will ground you in your basement bedroom again...now be a good boy, admit you were wrong (again) and maybe they'll buy you a real computer that can handle ALL the information the rest of us can already see

Right, you're the fetishist who stalks me from thread to thread making infantile taunts, yet I'm the child. Yeah, that makes a helluva lotta sense. :rolleyes:

We'll all agree that you're stupid, Maj. Fannysniffer, but even you aren't dumb enough to believe that A) it's not the speaker's responsibility to be understood, and B) one sentence is "covering" a topic.
Until you stalk me into the next thread, adios, Sra. Pettybitter.

They adore one another.

They really do.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Everyone please get back on topic and stop your personal attacks on one another.

Mahalo,
the Ape

...we must all face a choice, between what is right... and what is easy."

Thank you. That sounds good. :)

What the...?

Ape, you're a big @$#%^&*!!!!

Splatman:D

well, I did, Ken, until he got personal about my weight..I cant help it, it's glandular...just because a fellow is a few dozen kilos overweight and collects Star Wars figurines and is in his early 30s and lives at home playing computer games and never been laid is no reason for Hammy Hamster to start acting like Queen Charlotte and mocking me...really
...I'm still hoping we can kiss and make up, but then I also believed in the WMD line

... for Hammy Hamster to start acting like Queen Charlotte ...

Did you not read the moderator's order?
Here it is again, just for you.

Everyone please get back on topic and stop your personal attacks on one another.

So no more sniping. It's time to behave like a grown-up.
And if you can't post to me or in one of my threads without making a nasty personal attack, then please avoid replying to me or mentioning me in any way whatsoever.

I'm giving back the ring.

I think when someone's faults come to light, those of us observing are faced with a choice.
Do we look upon the faults and judge the person severely, as all sins tend to be judged, and also look upon their works in the same light--or do we seperate their works from them.

Is a person their life's-work?
Do the deeds of a person taint their life's-work?

If its found out on our death-bed that one of us kicked a puppy in the head and killed it ( or something equally despicable), does that decimate the body of work and lives that person touched through the whole of their life?
Really, Harvey, that's what you've been insinuating here. That's the underlying suggestion: that because Disney can be see to be a bad person, that his work is therefore "bad".
Do these account and anecdotes cite Disney's values and such in the later years of his life? Is it possible he made some kind of moralistic amends that these account simply choose to overlook? Or is the man damned once and for all for these deeds--without possibility of redemption? Was it recorded if he ever redeemed himself and if not, why is the assumption that he has not done so? Or is the possibility of that kind of thing cast aside so the negative image can prevail---because its easier/simpler to swallow?

I think THAT is the question that these kinds of claims pose--since Disney is dead.
Mel Gibson was cited elsewhere in the thread--Mel is still alive and can work towards redeeming himself, if he chooses to. Disney cannot--and that is why I think these kinds of claims about the man tend to fall flat.
People are complex. You will seldom if ever find a person so simplistically evil/malevolent that they can be qualitatively painted with the "evil" brush.
Most people that do wrong also do good--that lives they hurt are balanced by lives they've helped.

There's NO black and white arguments in this.

"We all grow older, we do not have to grow up"--Archie Goodwin ( 1937-1998)

Pages