Recognizing and Dealing With Vendetta in rec.boatsby RBBI |
 |
Recognizing and Dealing With Vendetta in rec.boatsby RBBI |
|
Origionally posted 14 August 1998
August 4th 1998 a posting concerning Brunswick / Mercury Marine Watermouse boat problems at Disney World appeared in the rec.boats newsgroup. It was posted by upinews1@aol.com and consisted of what appeared to be a UPI news article. A discussion about the article, genuineness of the post, accuracy of facts presented, and true intent of the poster ensued. We will use this background to show how rec.boats did a pretty good job in policing itself and offer some additional tips for readers when evaluating posts for authenticity. Most of the original posts appear below. We have removed the full email address and personal names of all except the original poster of the thread (chain of messages).
Subject: Dangerous Boats at Walt Disney World
From: boatnews1
Date: 1998/08/04
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Eight people have been seriously injured within the last six months while
operating Brunswick's new Watermouse boat at Walt Disney World.
Story by John Paulson / UPINEWS1
When Brunswick Corporation renewed their 10 year contract with Disney they
offered to replace the aging Watersprite, a two passenger sportboat
originally built by Disney and operated successfully on Bay Lake for the last
25 years. Brunswick assured Disney that the new Watermouse design would
increase revenues and equal Disney's safety record of only 8 accidents in 10
million rides. According to sources, neither goal has been reached. In
fact, since the Watermouse boats introduction last winter, 8 people have been
seriously injured. More specifically, 8 accidents in 5,000 rides. All of
the guests involved had to be hospitalized with injuries from propeller
lacerations to head concussions. The frequency of accidents has frustrated
both Disney and Brunswick officials who are trying to keep a lid on the real
cause.
According to inside sources close to Brunswick and Disney. The
problem started when Mercury Marine removed the propeller guard to increase
performance as well as changed the rounded bow to a pointed bow for
appearance. These two changes, despite numerous warnings, have deemed the
Watermouse a dangerous boat and the direct cause of the injuries which were
foreseeable and could have been prevented. ("according to sources").
From my own personal experience, I could only describe the Watermouse
as; to fast for children, very wet, unstable with the ability to steer this
craft out of control at full speed. Not to forget, the pointed bow which
looks like a harpoon waiting for a target.
When, I asked a Disney cast member (at the Grand) why the propeller
guard was removed. He responded by saying, "the Watermouse could not get on
a plane with the guard attached, otherwise they probably would have left it
on."
In March of 1998, I was afforded the opportunity to personally
witness an accident behind the Grand resort where a guest named Feakins of
Pennsylvania (note original post contained full name and town) was rammed
broadside by a young boy with the pointed bow, knocking him out of the boat
into the water, only to be run over by another boat, being driven by a young girl.
Thanks to no propeller guard and a pointed bow, Mr. Feakins suffered
multiple propeller lacerations on his already battered body, which of course
could have been prevented had the propeller guard been installed on a boat
with a rounded bow.
After the Feakins accident, I asked a cast member at the Grand
resort where they would usually takes boats to avoid the publics viewing of
blood and gore. I was told that all boats were serviced at the dry dock
facility, in the same breath he mention that Disney was offered a safer boat
similar to the original Watersprite called "Jeti" that was designed by the
same guy who invented parasailing and also had operated the parasail
concession at the Contemporary resort for the last three years. Although,
this mystery inventor was no were to be found, I was able to locate
information written about him on the Web at http://www.skyrider.net
A few days after the accident, the damaged boats showed up at the dry dock
facility. With no security at the gate, I was afforded easy access to an
unsecured area where the boats were being stored. With no one in site, I was
free to roam around without restrictions. Upon closer inspection, I was
horrified to see blood splattered boats with human skin and hair still intact
on the pointed bow for all to view. Simply put, it looked like the remains
from the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, "how unsanitary and UN-Disney-like"
(download photos called WaterM~1.Zip)
In a recent survey of 30 cast members at the Wilderness Lodge, Grand,
Polynesian and Contemporary who were familiar with the original Watersprite,
all concurred, that the Watermouse looks nice, but is really to dangerous
for inexperienced drivers."
I am certain that Brunswick feels that the Watermouse is a small liability in
the big picture. On the other hand, juries have historically awarded
outrageous sums for punitive damages when proof of gross and willful
negligence are so profound making the Watermouse a winning lottery ticket for
the first accident victim willing to step up the plate and collect.
Safety is an issue that should never be compromised, especially at Walt
Disney World.
Subject: Re: Boating Safety at Walt Disney World From: Scott Date: 1998/08/04 Newsgroups: rec.boats Disney uses engines with props because Mercury is a "Participant". That is a Disney term for a company that sponsors a ride or other area in return for signage and advertising rights. Mercury doesn't offer small jets. For years they have used the 9.9 with prop guards. I worked for a Participant (Cobia) for over 10 years. I am very skeptical of the lead story in this link. I have not seen the Brunswick Watermouse except on the web and I can not make any claims regarding their safety or lack there of. But I can say that no one can get to Disney's Dry Dock with passing through 2 security gates that require ID checks. Even though our company had supplied boats for 10 years, we were checked every time we entered those gates even if it was several times in the same day. Disney is extremely safety conscious. Whenever we were on the lakes to do photography for our catalog, we could not leave the dock with out a Disney representative onboard the photo boat to ensure that we were off the water before the parks opened (a must at Epcot) and that we kept away from any other traffic if we were on Bay Lake or the Seven Seas Lagoon during business hours. If Disney even suspected that the new boats were a problem, they would yank them immediately rather than risk any liability. The $3,000 per day that they take in is peanuts compared to their total operations and the risk to their name. I am under the suspicion that the "article" posted here is an attempt by the "other designer" to malign the Brunswick effort and promote his own boat. Has anyone living in Orlando heard about any mishaps at Disney? Scott Cacorder wrote: > Just curious, why the heck would Disney use boats with props? It seems a jet > powered boat with covered intake grate and internal impeller would be safer. > Any answers?
Subject: Re: Boating Safety at Walt Disney World From: upinews1@aol.com Date: 1998/08/05 Newsgroups: rec.boats Dear Scott, Thank you for your quick response. In my opinion, the Watermouse story goes far beyond the victims of accidents or potential vendors. Accordingly my reliable sources, it was Disney's recreation management team involved with the Watermouse project that intentionally stalled Regal Marine and other vendors to supply boats which meet with Disney's approval and incorporated the proven propeller guard and rounded bow design. However, Disney's strategy was designed to force Brunswick into building the Watermouse boats at a loss and in lieu of the safety and performance problems. The types and frequency of accidents to date, has sent both sides into a corner pointing fingers at each other while at the same time preserving their public image. With regard to evidence of accidents to date. I have listed them in Chronological order.. WATERMOUSE BOATING ACCIDENTS Date of the accident : January 29, 1998 Accident Victim: Ms. Davis Re: Husband and wife collide, the husband sustained head injuries Date of the accident: March 13th, 1998 Accident Victim: Feakins Re: A man was hit broadside by another boat driven by a young boy, knocking him into the water, the same man was then run over by another boat driven by a young girl. Photos are available of these blood splattered boats on request! Date of the accident: April 10, 1998 Accident Victim: Ciccirone Re: Three boats collide, Ciccirone is knocked out of the boat by the pointed bow and run over by one of the another boats, she sustained head injuries from the propeller and pointed bow. Date of the accident: April 10, 1998 Accident Victim: Unknown Re: Three boats collide, a young boy is knocked out of boat by the pointed bow and run over. He sustained head injuries by the propeller. Date of the accident: April 15, 1998 Accident Victim: Unknown Re: A boat run out of control ran into a wall at full speed, cracking the deck…and injuring the driver. Date of the accident: April 20, 1998 Accident Victim: Archer Re: The first boat stalls, a second boat runs over the stern with the pointed bow hitting the driver in the back of the head. He sustained a concussion. The driver of the second boat was found to be only 8 years old ! Date of the accident: May 12, 1998 Accident Victim: Unknown Re: Two boats collide, a young girl is knocked out of boat by the pointed bow and run over. The driver sustained minor head injuries by the propeller. Date of the accident: July 4, 1998 Accident Victim: Unknown Re: Two boats collide, the pointed bow knocked the driver out of the boat into the water. The driver sustained a head concussion but refused treatment. I believe there are more, but I could not confirm. ANOTHER RECENT WATERMOUSE DILEMMA….. Increased pollution on the lake caused by fuel spillage has concerned EPA officials and Reedy Creek. The portable two gallon fuel tanks on the original Watersprite boats, were replaced with built-in 8 gallon tanks on the new Watermouse boats, which allow for fuel spillage on every re-fill or approx 50 gallons on a busy day (based on 200 tanks filled twice per day, times one cup of gas being spilled) Why built-in tanks vs.portable? To meet the minimum passenger capacity of 300 lbs that Disney required, Mercury had to add weight to the front of the boat. This also explains why the boat is so wet on turns and steers out of control at high speeds. In closing, I can assure you this story is based on facts, all of which have been made available to Disney and Brunswick executives for there review and file. With regard to the Dry Dock security, according to sources inside Disney, there has been no security at that gate since January 1, 1998, for budget reasons! Sincerely, John Paulson UPINEWS1
Subject: Re: Boating Safety at Walt Disney World From: W6JCW Date: 1998/08/05 Newsgroups: rec.boats John, WHY ON EARTH would you post these folks names, addresses, and phone numbers on the net?? There's too many nuts out there to do something like this. If you wanted to send them to Scott, then you should have used e-mail. I know if I were on that list, I would be livid...... I appreciate the info about boating safety at Disney World, but please, next time engage your brain before your keyboard....
Subject: Re: Boating Safety at Walt Disney World From: upinews1@aol.com Date: 1998/08/05 Newsgroups: rec.boats Thank you for your interest in the Dangerous Boats at Walt Disney World story. First, the names listed in the accident reports are already public information. Second, you should be more livid about the Disney / Brunswick conspiracy to operate dangerous watercraft on Bay Lake without regard for public safety. Do you have any information that may helpful to inform the general public regarding the Watermouse ? Sincerely, John Paulson upinews1
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 From: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? Gary wrote: > > Mr. Wizard, an RBBI columnist and marine sorcerer, > has just posted his predictions for Brunswick and > some of its major boating companies. > > Drop by and check out the future at > > http://www.rbbi.com/ RBBI If you examine Mr. Wizards predictions, along with other bad news for Brunswick including there recent problems with the impletation of a defective boat fleet at Disney World "according to the upinews message". It would be easy understand that Brunswick will have to make a lot of changes in the future.
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 From: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? RBBI Based on Mr. Wizards predictions, along with other bad news for Brunswick including their recent problems with the implementation of a defective boat fleet at Walt Disney World "according to a upinews message". It appears that merger or takeover is in order, if not already underway! jmiller8210
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1998 From: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: brunswick vs. Disney Browrg wrote: > get a life > It would appear that the person who posted the article "Brunswick vs Disney" regarding the Watermouse boat problems, is trying to save lives, so get with it program! jmiller8210 Gary wrote: > > Mr. Wizard, an RBBI columnist and marine sorcerer, > has just posted his predictions for Brunswick and > some of its major boating companies. > > Drop by and check out the future at > > http://www.rbbi.com/ RBBI If you examine Mr. Wizards predictions, along with other bad news for Brunswick including there recent problems with the impletation of a defective boat fleet at Disney World "according to the upinews message". It would be easy understand that Brunswick will have to make a lot of changes in the future. jmiller8210
Email: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com Date: 1998/08/12 Forums: rec.boats (Browrg) wrote: > get a life It appears this person is trying to save a life, get with it program! jmiller8210
Email: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com
Date: 1998/08/12
Forums: rec.boats
(Browrg) wrote:
> get a life
It would appear that the person who posted the article "Brunswick vs Disney"
regarding the Watermouse boat problems, is trying to save lives, so get with
it program!
jmiller8210
Email: jmiller8210@my-dejanews.com Date: 1998/08/13 Forums: rec.boats To: John Paulson - UPINEWS1 Dear John, I just heard through a friend in Florida, that there was another boating accident at Walt Disney World yesterday, August 12th, 1998, involving the Brunswick Watermouse boats that seriously injured two Disney customers sending both to the hospital. One of the victims suffered a fractured skull and the other, a little girl whose face was crushed. Apparently, both injuries were caused by the pointed bow of the other Watermouse boat! I guess Brunswick is waiting for someone to get killed in there new and improved Watermouse trap, before they are removed from Disney's lake! jmiller8210
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
From: boatnews1@my-dejanews.com
Newsgroups: rec.boats
Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit?
The Brunswick Watermouse is out of control and so is Disney's recreation
program..
by John Paulson- UPINEWS1
ORLANDO (Aug.12) - A serious accident on Disney's Bay Lake sent a mother and
daughter to the Hospital on Wednesday. The mother suffered severe head
trauma and a fractured skull, while the little girl got her face crushed in.
Both injuries were caused by the other boats pointed bow. Unlike most
accidents, Disney must now confront the fact that Brunswick's Watermouse is
an inherently dangerous product and the contributing factor in the types of
injuries that have occurred to date. ("10 accidents within seven months,
9,000 rides and counting") all of which could of been avoided "according to
source's familiar with the project".
The Watermouse boats have got to go! , "said one Disney insider, who's name
could not be mentioned in fear of losing their job" stating that the public
image of Disney's Bay Lake recreation as a safe place for guest to have fun
and play is at risk. Worst yet, the entire recreation program in general has
gone to hell since being taken over by JW (a former pool guard) and MG (a
former car salesman) who are directly responsible for endorsing the
Watermouse over other boats that are far safer by comparison. This effort
was further endorsed by a Mercury Marine manager out of Wisconsin who
excluded other vendors that were dealing direct with Disney and of course
make way for big budgets for travel and play, all in the name of research and
development.
This is not the first blunder for the "dynamic dual" "according to sources
close to Disney", The JW-MG team introduced a Hovercraft 6 months or so ago,
which had be to stopped when the fan blades kept breaking sending fragments
across the lake at 120 mph, not to mention the noise.. Then came the purchase
of a very expensive Hummer vehicle to take Disney's guests fishing on a Lake
near the Magic Kingdom entrance. Unfortunately, the only customers were the
Disney recreation and Mercury Marine management for their private functions.
These two guys are very good salesman, "says one source close to Disney" they
like to play lots of golf , travel and spend Disney dollars along with there
Mercury Manager buddy who as a team successfully pitched the global
recreation program including the Watermouse to Disney and Brunswick
executives.
The problem with recreation is clearly JW and MG "says one Disney source".
Aside from being inexperienced in water recreation, their goals are
unrealistic with complicated budgets and schemes that are designed to
maintain their high profile jobs and lifestyles with Disney.
I am certain that the Disney executives who supported the JW-MG team feel
discouraged with global recreation forecast. Thanks in part to Brunswick's
Watermouse, which has become the Trap, that caught the Mouse!
Safety should never be compromised, especially at Walt Disney World.
Date: 14 Aug 1998 From: Cacorder Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? >> Safety should never be compromised, especially at Walt Disney World. >The watermouse boats have got to go! This thread has to go. With the 4 original postings and multiple "quotes" this unproven RUMOR has been posted at least 10 times. Dont you think we have read it enough or do you have some sort of hard on for Disney?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 From: Eric Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? boatnews1@my-dejanews.com wrote: [redundant story clipped] And by the way, this other ID "boatnews1", shares the same trace characteristics as the other two ID's posting and supporting these stories. In other words, it looks like you're all the same person. The same person with some sort of agenda. Show some proof. And no, names, addresses, and phone numbers of alleged victims are not relevant. An independent news source with the same stories would be valid.
Date: 14 Aug 1998 From: Gould Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! Eric stated: >A few things... >You and jmiller8210 (who's been very verbal in supporting you) > are both coming in from almost the same IP address > (both AOL gateways in the same region), and there are a few > other things a bit too similar (which I'm not going to reveal) > in your article trace info. None of the info has yet to be backed > up by any external sources, and UPINEWS1 is an obvious fake > ID attempting to mimic UPI News. > >How about posting a link to some external source that can confirm > ANY of these stories. Without that this sounds like an agenda. > Back up the claims. > If the Watermouse ride is dangerous, that's a legitimate concern. I share some of the doubts expressed by Eric. The style and syntax of the claimed "news article" would get a C minus in an 8th Grade Journalism class (it's an editorial, not a report!). Does somebody maybe have it in for the two gentlemen maligned in the ad?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 12:00:12 GMT From: boatnews1@my-dejanews.com Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? boatnews1@my-dejanews.com wrote: > (repeat of his earlier 14 August post, deleted here) > The watermouse boats have got to go!
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 From: blue Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? boatnews1@my-dejanews.com wrote: > boatnews1@my-dejanews.com wrote: > > The Brunswick Watermouse is out of control and so is Disney's recreation > > program.. > The watermouse boats have got to go! This whole thread is bogus. This exposes the danger of a newsgroup on the internet. Twits can hide behind their keyboards and report lies as truths without any reperocussions.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 From: upinews1@aol.com Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? blue wrote: > This whole thread is bogus. This exposes the danger of a newsgroup on the > internet. Twits can hide behind their keyboards and report lies as truths > without any reperocussions. To: blue After each story is posted, copies are sent via e-mail to all the parties concerned i.e. (email addresses deleted) for their comments and rebuttal . You can be assured, that if the story being printed was false or misleading, both Disney and Brunswick have the resources to file for an injunctive relief requesting a court ordered cease and desists motion. "According sources close to both Disney and Brunswick, they have no intention of seeking such an action which would require them to show proof positive, that the information posted was in fact false and misleading, which it is not. Bottom Line. Disney needs to replace the Watermouse boats with a safer boat. There is no excuse for the preventable injuries to date, especially to innocent children who are not aware of the risk!
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 From: upinews1@aol.com Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! gould wrote: > If the Watermouse ride is dangerous, that's a legitimate concern. > > I share some of the doubts expressed by Eric. The style and > syntax of the claimed "news article" would get a C minus in > an 8th Grade Journalism class (it's an editorial, not a report!). > > Does somebody maybe have it in for the two gentlemen maligned in the ad? To: gould The Watermouse story is proactive, not reactive. If you would take the time to review all of the stories posted and the tone of your response, one could only suspect that you are affiliated somehow with Disney, Brunswick or Mercury Marine whom I have always sent copies via e-mail for there comments, i.e. (email addresses deleted) A concerned respondent would view this article with compassion and concern for the guest who were injured asking more questions like, why was the propeller guard removed for the Bay Lake operations?, or, why changed the boat design to a pointed bow from the proven safety of a rounded bow?, or, why was this particular boat design chosen over the original Disney Watersprite and/or other models that could have prevented the types of injuries that have occurred to date?. Not questions about similar IP addresses, etc.. Quite frankly, the "dynamic duels" role in the implementation of the Watermouse is news worthy. Most of the detailed Watermouse information received to date describes conflicts of interest, corruption, deceptive business practices, collusion and conspiracy between the parties. These matters are note worthy at best, but do not pertain to public safety issues. In my opinion, the message is more important than the messenger. Based on the information received, the Watermouse boats are defective, dangerous and should be removed from the lake immediately, as further evidenced by the number people, including children getting hurt unnecessary on a monthly basis. What is more disturbing, "according to sources close to the project" Disney, Mercury and Brunswick, a) had prior knowledge of the numerous Watermouse defects, b) they fully understood that changing to a pointed bow design would increase the chances for serious injuries c) removing the propeller guard was to avoid setting a precedent that would effect pending propeller guard litigation without regard for safety. John Paulson upinews1 fr21au97N Propeller Injury Prevention Involving Rented Boats fr26mr96P Propeller Injury Prevention Aboard Rental Boats
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 From: E Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! upinews1@aol.com wrote: >To: gould0738 > >The Watermouse story is proactive, not reactive. If you would take the time >to review all of the stories posted and the tone of your response, one could >only suspect that you are affiliated somehow with Disney, Brunswick or >Mercury Marine [clip] That's so weak. "You disagree with me, so you must be affiliated with the people I'm maligning". >A concerned respondent would view this article with compassion and concern [clip] >Not questions about similar IP addresses, etc.. > A concerned respondent who has trouble believing unsubstantiated claims would like you to provide a source for these stories other than your own fantasies. You're posting under several ID's having converstions with yourself, and anyone questioning it is an "agent of the enemy" ? Please. If the stories are real, provide a few independent sources than can confirm them. This has already been asked and you've chosen to ignore the request. Provide sources. Otherwise take your agenda elsewhere.
Date: 14 Aug 1998 From: Marcus Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! upinews1@aol.com wrote: > The Watermouse story is proactive, not reactive. A true story based only on facts must always be reactive. Reporters don't make the news, they report it--after it happens, as a reaction. Proactive would mean they made it up before it happened. Which is it? > If you would take the time to review all of the stories posted and > the tone of your response, one could only suspect that you are > affiliated somehow with Disney, Brunswick or Mercury Marine... I could only suspect he wanted another source to back up the story. If this stuff really happened as described, there should be a record of it somewhere. > A concerned respondent would view this article with compassion and > concern for the guest who were injured asking more questions like... As Gould himself put in other words, if people were truly injured, then I could become a concerned respondent. But this is Usenet, and until verified elsewhere, all stories are assumed bogus. So, let's have some citations of sources that can be verified, not ones that come up as dead ends. How else can this be distinguished from a boy crying wolf?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 16:51:42 -0500 From: Skipper Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! upinews1@aol.com wrote: > To: gould0738 > (message deleted) > John Paulson > upinews1 What does John Paulson have to do with United Press International??? He sounds like a disgruntled ex-employee. Thankfully this is about Disney and not the post office.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 From: Brian Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! upinews1@aol.com wrote: > > Quite frankly, the "dynamic duels" role in the implementation of the > Watermouse is news worthy. Then why can't you provide us with references from recognized news sources? > > In my opinion, the message is more important than the messenger. Not when the messengeer trys to represent himself as something he is not by usurping the good name of UPI news.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 From: Robert Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? E wrote in message >Show some proof. And no, names, addresses, and phone numbers of alleged >victims are not relevant. An independent news source with the same stories >would be valid. A way to check this out would be to forward a copy to Disney's legal dept.
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 From: Gary Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? blue wrote: > This whole thread is bogus. This exposes the danger of a newsgroup on the > internet. Twits can hide behind their keyboards and report lies as truths > without any reperocussions. I agree, so we (RBBI) archived the posts and provided a discussion of them centering on how readers might earlier detect such problem. It is all on our "Recognizing and Dealing with Vendetta in rec.boats" Page You can temporarily get there from our entry page http://www.rbbi.com/ or you can go directly to http://www.rbbi.com/folders/recb/vendetta/vendetta.htm I thing you will find some useful ideas there for evaluating future posts of this nature. gary RBBI
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 From: Eric Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? I checked thru the whole thread as on rbbi.org, and noticed once thing from one of the first posts by boatnews1: " After the Feakins accident, I asked a cast member at the Grand resort where they would usually takes boats to avoid the publics viewing of blood and gore. I was told that all boats were serviced at the dry dock facility, in the same breath he mention that Disney was offered a safer boat similar to the original Watersprite called "Jeti" that was designed by the same guy who invented parasailing and also had operated the parasail concession at the Contemporary resort for the last three years. Although, this mystery inventor was no were to be found, I was able to locate information written about him on the Web at http://www.skyrider.net" Going to www.skyrider.net and reading the information there, it's very legal-oriented, talking about legal threats, dangers of competing products, etc, etc. The text is written in a very similar manner to these anti-Brunswick posts, by a person who knows the inner workings of Disney and the Contemporary resort. (Does anyone really think a cast member would reveal to the general public where a boat is taken after an accident and just blurt out that Disney had a safer alternative they didn't take? Sounds like someone with inside info.) Draw your own conclusions.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 From: upinews1@aol.com Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! #1 Marcus wrote: > A true story based only on facts must always be reactive. Reporters > don't make the news, they report it--after it happens, as a reaction. > Proactive would mean they made it up before it happened. Which is it? --------------------- A RESPONSE ... Make no mistake, the Walt Disney World Company is an exceptional organization operated by an outstanding team of cast members who understand personal values of superiors, subordinates, peers and the millions of guests they serve each year. However, the public identifies with Disney as a place were safety is paramount and never compromised for politics or profits and where Disney assumes responsibility for their mistakes and shortcomings. If the Watermouse editorial was reactive, it would merely make an impression for viewers like yourself to respond. The Watermouse project clearly demonstrates irresponsible behavior on those who masterminded it, and relevant only to the seniors executives within the Disney, Brunswick and Mercury Marine organizations who could intervene and resolve it. If not, Watermouse accidents will continue and more unsuspecting families will be injured. With regard to our sources, every executive at Disney, Brunswick and Mercury Marine that are involved with the Watermouse project, have got their monitors glued to this story and probably on a witch hunt by know looking for the source's leaking such pertinent information. Good Luck! John Paulson Upinews1
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 From: Scott Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! #1 John Paulson, I want to know two things: 1. What is your relation to United Press International, if any? If you have no relation, why post under a the bogus name of UPINEWS1 other than to attempt to mislead readers into believing that you are something that you are not. 2. Which was your original post, a "news" story or an editorial? The original post claimed to be a "news" story since is was posted in the style of a newspaper article. Just above, in your response to Marcus, you call it an editorial. Again, if you were associated with a legitimate news organization, you should know the difference. I believe the original post you state "Story by John Paulson". I believe this is pure fantasy.
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 From: Skipper Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! #1 upinews1@aol.com wrote: > With regard to our sources, every executive at Disney, Brunswick and > Mercury Marine that are involved with the Watermouse project, have got > their monitors glued to this story and probably on a witch hunt by > know looking for the source's leaking such pertinent information. Take your BS and find an appropriate NG. "EVERY executive at Disney, Brunswick, and Mercury Marine", ...get real. We do understand that you have no affiliation with UPI, refuse to post responses to the questions raised, fabricated the 'news story', and are a total jerk for using an amusement park attraction to support your bash. Do you have any boating issues?
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 1998 From: Skipper Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: What's next for Brunswick? lawsuit? #1 upinews1@aol.com wrote: > Bottom Line. Disney needs to replace the Watermouse boats with a safer > boat. There is no excuse for the preventable injuries to date, > especially to innocent children who are not aware of the risk! > > John Paulson > Upinews1 And what's next for upinews1@aol.com posting through DejaNews? Abuse@***? One quick e-mail would get your off topic flame stopped. Ten, and you can forget posting through Deja. Suggest you get on topic!
Date: 17 Aug 1998 From: STGAZER Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Re: Brunswicks Watermouse boats have got to go! If everyone would e-mail dateline or 20/20 or 48 hours on the Disney Watermouse - maybe they would do a story on it to see if it's safe or not.
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1998 From: Gary Newsgroups: rec.boats Subject: Brunswick Disney Watermouse Vendetta Over? RBBI has been maintaining an archive of the thread and also posted some suggestions about how to avoid being "spoofed" by a vendetta in the future. You can temporarily get there from the entry page http://www.rbbi.com or you can go direct to: http://www.rbbi.com/folders/recb/vendetta/vendetta.htm gary RBBI
