Imagineers come from many creative and technical backgrounds. Engineers, architects, painters, sculptors, music composers, computer programmers, costume designers, you name it. If you work for the Glendale crew, you’re an Imagineer full stop.God, if he goes to work at Imagineering and does multimedia production, that’d be rough to work there but not be able to call yourself an Imagineer. At least I’d go crazy if that were me.
No doubt that certain roles get that designation (like the ones you listed), but some don’t. For instance when visual merchandising was folded into Imagineering they weren’t permitted to use the name. It’s a title reserved for certain creative positions.Imagineers come from many creative and technical backgrounds. Engineers, architects, painters, sculptors, music composers, computer programmers, costume designers, you name it. If you work for the Glendale crew, you’re an Imagineer full stop.
I'm not going to go back and listen to it again but the only person that was bought up by name was Shaun. From what Craig and Corey were talking about when the name was bought up it being a media event memory. My guess is it was Shaun Thompson.I thought it was hilarious that the gag order of never mentioning anyone's name that left the Dis is still enforced. A couple people were referred to but no one by name that I can recall. It's like they're in the mob and you never say the name of anyone who got clipped.
I can maybe shed some light on this now. Although I'm not certain, I highly suspect that Craig’s "cloaked apology" was a reaction to a difficult conversation we had.He made some sort of cloaked apology about maybe he was behaving a certain way because he thought he was doing what was right for the company. It was odd.
You might be right but I remember him saying Ryno replaced his "best friend" but not Shaun's name. Whatever. Not worth it to watch again.I'm not going to go back and listen to it again but the only person that was bought up by name was Shaun. From what Craig and Corey were talking about when the name was bought up it being a media event memory. My guess is it was Shaun Thompson.
I'm also wondering if Craig's job is going to be along the lines of what Shaun is doing with Disney.
I think it says a lot about Craig that he listened to your feedback.I can maybe shed some light on this now. Although I'm not certain, I highly suspect that Craig’s "cloaked apology" was a reaction to a difficult conversation we had.
Craig reached out to me for feedback on a statement he was planning to post after the news about Dustin broke. After reading it, I told him it was good but not good enough. The statement was mainly informational about what he knew and what he didn't know. The transparency was good, but I pointed out it lacked an acknowledgment that we had enabled Pete and an apology for our part in it. I explained that his statement's focus was off, similar to John's.
We had a back-and-forth about whether my perspective was true. Craig felt he wasn't responsible because if he hadn’t been doing his job, someone else would have. In his mind, that absolved him because Pete’s affairs could continue without him. I explained that the problem was it wasn’t someone else—it was us. We were often tools in Pete’s toolbox, and it was our choice to be there. At some point, we all saw the toxicity and chose to stay. I told him he needed to take some responsibility if he wanted his statement to be satisfactory to others.
Now that he is out and "safe," I feel free to share an excerpt of the hard truth I spoke in that text exchange:
"People were broken, and we did it. We helped keep everything 'business as usual' so Pete could skate by. In cases of abuse (outside of sexual assault), we knew. We still kept it afloat and justified it to support our families. You knew about Shaun. You stayed. You knew about me. You stayed. You may have known about others after me. You stayed. In my case, you definitely enabled it. I have the text messages. [I’m referring to how Pete put him up to bringing me back for a final Universal show against my wishes so Pete could save face.] Again, I'm not holding a grudge. I'm trying to wake you up. Your statement is a good start but lacks true responsibility for your part and an apology. It has a tone of 'this is my defense' because I think you’re still focused on that. The focus has to shift..."
To his credit, Craig received everything I said. He expressed appreciation and said this was exactly why he reached out to me. He wanted honesty. Shortly after our exchange, you reported his seemingly random acknowledgment of his part in this. Maybe it wasn’t related to our conversation, but the timing seemed coincidental. Whether he was talking about me or not, it seemed like he had humbled himself enough to hear my direct and hard words. I was moved.
A good example of this is when they did a video of Worst 2-Credit Dining Locations.I felt like Pete was regularly verbally attacking Craig on the podcast. He was often rude to him.
First, thank you for sharing this story.I can maybe shed some light on this now. Although I'm not certain, I highly suspect that Craig’s "cloaked apology" was a reaction to a difficult conversation we had.
Craig reached out to me for feedback on a statement he was planning to post after the news about Dustin broke. After reading it, I told him it was good but not good enough. The statement was mainly informational about what he knew and what he didn't know. The transparency was good, but I pointed out it lacked an acknowledgment that we had enabled Pete and an apology for our part in it. I explained that his statement's focus was off, similar to John's.
We had a back-and-forth about whether my perspective was true. Craig felt he wasn't responsible because if he hadn’t been doing his job, someone else would have. In his mind, that absolved him because Pete’s affairs could continue without him. I explained that the problem was it wasn’t someone else—it was us. We were often tools in Pete’s toolbox, and it was our choice to be there. At some point, we all saw the toxicity and chose to stay. I told him he needed to take some responsibility if he wanted his statement to be satisfactory to others.
Now that he is out and "safe," I feel free to share an excerpt of the hard truth I spoke in that text exchange:
"People were broken, and we did it. We helped keep everything 'business as usual' so Pete could skate by. In cases of abuse (outside of sexual assault), we knew. We still kept it afloat and justified it to support our families. You knew about Shaun. You stayed. You knew about me. You stayed. You may have known about others after me. You stayed. In my case, you definitely enabled it. I have the text messages. [I’m referring to how Pete put him up to bringing me back for a final Universal show against my wishes so Pete could save face.] Again, I'm not holding a grudge. I'm trying to wake you up. Your statement is a good start but lacks true responsibility for your part and an apology. It has a tone of 'this is my defense' because I think you’re still focused on that. The focus has to shift..."
To his credit, Craig received everything I said. He expressed appreciation and said this was exactly why he reached out to me. He wanted honesty. Shortly after our exchange, you reported his seemingly random acknowledgment of his part in this. Maybe it wasn’t related to our conversation, but the timing seemed coincidental. Whether he was talking about me or not, it seemed like he had humbled himself enough to hear my direct and hard words. I was moved.
I appreciate everything you’ve done for moving the conversation along here in a productive light, but I just can’t shake the taste of self righteousness out of your posts when you speak about a situation that is clearly still very toxic and active for those involved at this workplace- and since gone. I know you’ve spoken about your own Pete issues and I don’t want to discredit the abuse you suffered either. It just feels a little tasteless for you To be on this gossip sight basically saying “I told them so.”I can maybe shed some light on this now. Although I'm not certain, I highly suspect that Craig’s "cloaked apology" was a reaction to a difficult conversation we had.
Craig reached out to me for feedback on a statement he was planning to post after the news about Dustin broke. After reading it, I told him it was good but not good enough. The statement was mainly informational about what he knew and what he didn't know. The transparency was good, but I pointed out it lacked an acknowledgment that we had enabled Pete and an apology for our part in it. I explained that his statement's focus was off, similar to John's.
We had a back-and-forth about whether my perspective was true. Craig felt he wasn't responsible because if he hadn’t been doing his job, someone else would have. In his mind, that absolved him because Pete’s affairs could continue without him. I explained that the problem was it wasn’t someone else—it was us. We were often tools in Pete’s toolbox, and it was our choice to be there. At some point, we all saw the toxicity and chose to stay. I told him he needed to take some responsibility if he wanted his statement to be satisfactory to others.
Now that he is out and "safe," I feel free to share an excerpt of the hard truth I spoke in that text exchange:
"People were broken, and we did it. We helped keep everything 'business as usual' so Pete could skate by. In cases of abuse (outside of sexual assault), we knew. We still kept it afloat and justified it to support our families. You knew about Shaun. You stayed. You knew about me. You stayed. You may have known about others after me. You stayed. In my case, you definitely enabled it. I have the text messages. [I’m referring to how Pete put him up to bringing me back for a final Universal show against my wishes so Pete could save face.] Again, I'm not holding a grudge. I'm trying to wake you up. Your statement is a good start but lacks true responsibility for your part and an apology. It has a tone of 'this is my defense' because I think you’re still focused on that. The focus has to shift..."
To his credit, Craig received everything I said. He expressed appreciation and said this was exactly why he reached out to me. He wanted honesty. Shortly after our exchange, you reported his seemingly random acknowledgment of his part in this. Maybe it wasn’t related to our conversation, but the timing seemed coincidental. Whether he was talking about me or not, it seemed like he had humbled himself enough to hear my direct and hard words. I was moved.
When Sean and Dustin came forward, I had the chance to speak with both of them about their experiences and let them know they had my full support. Dustin thanked me for my posts, saying they helped keep the topic active, which is the main reason I continue to share here. I don't gain much personally from doing this; in fact, there are risks to me both personally and professionally, especially since I'm open about my identity. Reliving these memories takes an emotional toll on me, and speaking out publicly doesn't win me many friends (at the Dis or elsewhere) because the whole situation makes people uncomfortable. I've tried to state that plainly many times.I appreciate everything you’ve done for moving the conversation along here in a productive light, but I just can’t shake the taste of self righteousness out of your posts when you speak about a situation that is clearly still very toxic and active for those involved at this workplace- and since gone. I know you’ve spoken about your own Pete issues and I don’t want to discredit the abuse you suffered either. It just feels a little tasteless for you To be on this gossip sight basically saying “I told them so.”
Were you on Craig’s ass like a good friend “all those years” after you left telling him he’s betraying you if he doesn’t leave? Or did that just become the opinion when things came to light because of Dustin?
If that's Pete, he must have maxed out his Amex again....... on potato chips and ice cream.At the 19:50 minute mark in this video I thought it may have been a Pete sighting in the background. After far too many replays I don't think it is, but wanted to share with those who would know better than me. The shirt, bag, and I think glasses straps seemed tacky enough for Pete.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?