RIP WDI - Is Imagineering Dead?

[DVC-Landbaron]

OK folks!! This I ripped from another site. It is from the Fabulous Disney Babe (reprinted here with her permission):

RIP WDI - Is Imagineering Dead?

On May 29, Marty Sklar sent out a memo to "all Imagineers". In it, he outlined the completion of the "ethnic cleansing" (not his phrase, obviously) of all of the people in Imagineering who worked under Tony Baxter. Tony's made quite a few enemies in "new Disney" because he is extremely outspoken about the loss of quality the theme parks have been experiencing in the past few years, and the emphasis on profit over kickass Disney experiences. Honestly, who would have imagined a Disney Decade ago that Imagineering's offerings would be a distant second to Universal attractions such as Spider-Man and Men In Black, for Walt's sake? Note: nowhere in this memo did it say that any of the information was to be kept secret or inside the company. If it did, I wouldn't have the information up here.

Here's the gist:

Sklar starts out the memo by saying that Tony, Paul Pressler and himself had been talking about "creating new challenges" for Tony (Fab's note: read: getting Tony out of the way.). The discussions, from what I hear, were pretty one-sided, with Marty and some of his VPs trying to find a way to minimize Tony's position, politically, and get more "manageable" people in his place. Tony bargained for months, injecting as many creative elements into his contract - which has been in overtime negotiations for months - as possible. Insiders view this as Tony "giving in" to the Accountaneers, and biding his time until WDI is such a mess that they come back asking for salvation.

I love this quote: "(I have sometimes suspected that Paul was saying, 'Well -- they took me away from Disneyland to take on other opportunities and challenges; now it's your turn, Tony!')" Marty continues with what he describes as "Tony's Strengths", that he was a great "partner" for Paul, Cynthia, T. Irby, and other key Disneyland Management. He praises Tony's "creative imagination" and optimism.

He states that they want to use Tony's talents on a larger canvas, to not keep him tied to a single venue. Like Disneyland, for example.

He then outlines the plan to remove the teeth from the Baxter Problem: Marty will make all of Tony's assignments in consultation with Don Goodman, the Michael Wong Accountaneer who is now in charge of WDI, and Tony will report to them directly. Sklar says he may lead creative teams (don't hold your breath) and in some other cases he may be support, banking on his ride system expertise and ideas. He talks about several project ideas for Tony, but states that they are still formative, so he won't discuss them in this memo. "Suffice to say," he notes, "they are "major E ticket attractions." One idea in particular will focus on combining ride and film system technologies; another has strong potential to enhance the kinetics of Tomorrowland at Disneyland."

He also states that Tony will work with George Head on projects similar to Tarzan's Treehouse, which started out as a rehab of the Swiss Family Treehouse leaves. He asks: "Are there more "Tarzan Treehouses" out there? That's what Paul has suggested we all look for around the Disney Theme Park world."

He concludes that this new challenge they are giving Tony is a win- win-win...and it is, for them. They have been trying to get Tony into a nice comfortable corner where they can ignore him to death ever since Disneyland Paris' Imagineering team took the blame for the overbuilding of the Euro Disney Resort hotels and the successive financial losses the resort suffered because of this. WDI management has found that anyone with the integrity and power that Tony held (he actually could go directly to Eisner and Wells before Wells' death), was too much of a problem to deal with and his incessant demand for high quality and attempts to sustain Disney's standards were too costly. They have effectively put Tony on a short leash, under the control of people more inclined to agree with the financial-minded management that's now running Disney. The hype about the above blue- sky projects they supposedly have him working on? Just that. Tony's been stripped of most of his power at Disney. Tony is retiring in February, and it looks right now as if The Indiana Jones Adventure: Temple of the Forbidden Eye will be Tony's last E-Ticket for Disney. Will he have a happy retirement, speaking at Disneyana conventions and searching for the perfect barber chair? Come February, will the bidding war for Baxter's Theme Park Design genius begin? Ask me in March.

But what about Tony's team, all of the Imagineers who worked with him? The senior ones are safely attached to their own projects - most of them. Kim Irvine-Allison isn't so lucky. A brilliant color theorist, it's a small world '93 aside, Kim worked on the Casa Mex/Rancho del Zocalo redo most recently, and cut her design teeth on the New Fantasyland, as her artwork hanging in the Disneyland Hotel ballroom hallways attest. The daughter of Leota Toombs, (yeah, THAT Leota), she has a Disney pedigree a mile long. What do the years of hard work and her obvious talents get her? She was basically told that her success all those years came from Tony and that Barry Braverman doesn't think she has what it takes to be an art director, and so she was demoted, as punishment for her loyalty to Tony. The not-so-senior? Well, They essentially told those of the design team that were sent back to WDI that they weren't to associate themselves with anyone in the Design Studio or involve themselves with any Disneyland projects. Most of the other team members have either been laid off or moved into obscure cubicles at WDI, hopefully to be intimidated enough that they will just quit. For these creative people to be treated like outcasts borders on criminal. How criminal? You'll see in the next week or so.

In the second memo sent out that day (they'd known about this for a few weeks but wanted to get PR to be able to spin it, first), Marty and Dan outline the new vision for Disneyland:

Remember Black Tuesday, when WDI and DDC became, for a short while, DDD? In the end, they kept the Imagineering name and the Disney Design mindset. Well, it's the same thing...and the meaning, I'm afraid, is the same, too: " Following the recent landmark expansion of the Disneyland Resort, Imagineering's teams based in Anaheim have been reorganized under the new banner of WDI-Anaheim, comprised of two major groups, Design Resources and Project Management. The Design Resources team is responsible for small design projects and creative enhancements throughout the entire Disneyland Resort as well as all sustainment efforts including show awareness, show documentation and quality assurance. This integrates the former Design Services and (Show Quality Services) groups into one team, which will continue to be based backstage at Disneyland." Marty and Don then outline the new guard at Disneyland, which include a name or two you recognize and a bunch you won't. I'm a little gun- shy about disclosing these people's names, so I won't. If they want to be in the limelight, they can write to me and I'll name them. They have been described as "paper pushers". While Tony and the previous team had been able to develop a solid relationship with Disneyland's maintenance, operations and management in order to successfully provide quality enhancements to the park, this new team has no clue as to how the DDS operation even functions, let alone actually be able to provide the creative support that the previous team was able to. But they are much more agreeable to work with on the management end, and that, apparently, is what is important here. The main point is this: Tony is out, and Barry Braverman, will lead the WDI-Anaheim Design Resources team as primary creative executive for the resort.. Barry headed up the DCA project for the past five years, and along with running WDI's Disneyland arm, he has also assumed the role of executive producer for Hong Kong Disneyland, (with Timur Galen, who gave us the Honey I Shrunk the Budget for Tomorrowland and the More Guests, Less Parking infrastructure of the Disneyland Resort). The old guard has been replaced with a new guard, and four legs are, for the moment, better than two.

Fab

What'd think?

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Here's a little aid for the names mentioned in the earlier post. (complete with editorial slant of course )


Tony Baxter - An "old-school" Imagineer. According to "Disney A to Z", he started working for the company in 1965 serving ice cream in Disneyland. His title (according to the book) is "Executive Vice President in charge of design for the Disney parks." You've undoubtedly ridden some of his rides, such as Splash Mountain and Big Thunder Mountain.

Paul Pressler - Former head of Disneyland and current head of the whole Parks & Resorts segments (theme parks, hotels, DisneyQuests, cruise ships). A notorious penny-pincher and Eisner yes-man who is said not to "get it" when it comes to the magic of Disney's parks.

Marty Sklar - Vice Chairman of Walt Disney Imagineering. He has worked for Disney since 1955 when he was a student. It appears that he, too, may now be a yes-man for Eisner. What a shame, because Marty should know better.

Cynthia Harriss - Runs Disneyland (including DCA). When she took over for Pressler, fans thought she had some potential. She has done some great things for the resort, but many think she hasn't gone far enough. The question is, is it because she's a sell-out? Or because her hands are tied by the "Accountaneers"? I suspect the latter, but I don't follow the west coast happenings as much.

T. Irby - I think he's in charge of Disneyland maintenance and is another penny-pinching yes-man

Don Goodman - One of Michael Wong's Real Estate footsoldiers and MDE's almighty dollar worshippers.

Michael Wong - Disney Design and Development: cheap resorts. Brought the same mindset to WDI with the blessing of management.

George Head - One of the Michael Wong guys.

Frank Wells - President of Disney until he died in a helicopter crash in 1994. Many people believe that Eisner and Wells made a good team, but that things started going downhill after Wells' death and Eisner's heart attack. I tend to agree.

Leota Toombs - Imagineer, show design I believe. Regardless, she is the face you see (but not the voice you hear) in the crystal ball in the Haunted Mansion. You do, however, hear her voice and see her face at the end of the attraction. She's the little lady in the flowing gown saying, "Huuurrrryyy baaaaaack..."

Barry Braverman - Largely responsible for DCA.

Hope this helps!

 

[YoHo]

Well, it looks like my managment shakeup theory came true. Editorializing not withstanding, we will now see if it is as bad as it seems, or if there is hope that some of these Paper-pushers are more then they seem. We shall see.

 

[Peter Pirate]

not Pressler because the Texans do not like him.

Just how much influence do the Bass brothers still have at Disney?

Also, if they (the Bass's) don't like Pressler, why is he so tight with Mike? I presume Mike, the Bass's & Roy are still all on the same page? Another question, since Buffett bailed has any other majority 'stepped in'? And has the Buffett departure hurt Eisner on the serious stockholder level?

Any thoughts?

 

[OnWithTheShow]

I think the "memo" is pure BS. But thats just my opinion. Anyone that would have access to this information IF IT EXISTED would know better than to share it, you could easily be terminated for such a thing.

 

[DVC-Landbaron]

Yeah. I know what you mean. That was my first impression as well. That is why I e-mailed Fab and asked her for permission to reprint it. And I told her where it was going. She told me to go ahead. I think that she would be a little careful about outright lies, as she does have a reputation to maintain.

I don't know, but to me it lends it more credability with Fab being the author. But maybe I'm just gullable!!

 

[Another Voice]

On the Bass Bros. – if you buy the right people a few beers you’ll get the answer “when someone making an acquisition shows up”. If you buy them a few more beers, you’ll get “or when Roy ‘retires’ – whichever comes first”. Ever since Disney became a Dow component, it’s ownership has become more diluted than it was when Team Bass first showed up (and Basses have also sold off large chunks of their initially holdings as well). Plus, all of those stock options that Mr. Eisner and his family has been cashing in has shifted the balance of power. A majority of the board are nothing but his lackey (among them are his favorite architect and a former school teacher to his kids). I will give Mr. Eisner credit for one thing – no other CEO could have survived that last five years without the ability to play a Board of Directors as well as he has.

Mr. Pressler is starting to pick up some dirt from all of the problems with Attractions right now: California Adventures’ failure, attendance problems at WDW, continued under-performance at the cruise line, etc. He’s never been well liked within the company and there may already be a few office pool going around about Paul’s date to start “seeking other opportunities in the business community”. The only way he could have become President was to do things the way the royal family of Nepal seems to handle these matters.

Tony Baxter has been out of favor for a long, long time. In fact, his head of Disneyland design was already pretty much a move to get rid of him. A brilliant designer (you should have seen the plans for the four attraction Indiana Jones Temple Complex!), but he’s always been rather outspoken and that’s never helped him much. WDI hasn’t been WDI for a long time now and Tony just doesn’t fit in as a project manager watching other companies create Disney rides. It will be fun to watch Disney try to enforce any no-compete clause in Tony’s contract. Those are virtually unenforceable in California and I’m sure MGM/Mirage will let him work from here.

But what I’m really shocked by is that the Fabulous Disney Babe would write something like this. Someone in Corp. Communications is going to be catching hell for this after the DCA junket and the ‘Country Bear’ extra bit (why she thought that being an extra is fun is beyond me – my experience is that’s it’s a punishment, not a reward). I'm sure the memo she is reporting was written in the 'Human Resource' dialect of English and this is her translation, with a few background comments thrown in. It will be interesting to see if she’s invited to the opening of ‘Who Wants To Be A Millionaire: Xerox It!’ at DCA later this summer.

 

[swinginevilmike]

I got the very same email too...We might as well change the name to Eisnerland, Eisners California Adventure, Mike Eisners World, Eisnerquest, The Eisner Store. If Tony leaves that will be the straw that broke the Mouses back...

 

[Peter Pirate]

Thanks thedscoop & Voice, this has been interesting.

While we know & it is quite apparant that Eisner has been a true master at insulating himself atop the Disney foodchain, his power still must stem from large, large sources, must they not? Or is it possible that he has just played his cards very well to get to this point (is he that good of politician?).

What I'm trying to get at, is how has he been able to create the "shell world" environment, of hand picked Directors and "fat-cat" employment/bonus/options contracts that are his domain? Surely it must be a large segment of stockholders that follow the Bass's or maybe (more realistically), Roy Disney, that vote their proxies in favor of Eisner...And certainly that "rubber stamp" Board doesn't seem to be changing...Or does Eisner himself now control a significant enough block of shareholder votes & influence (in the watered down public stock pool)?

 

[Peter Pirate]

If you dug up some Landbaron and my vintage arguments from a year ago or so, I'd swear that, based on your last post, you were me!

I have oft tried to explain my feelings on the importance of an independent Disney and why the peripheral growth was so necessary to remaining independent.

You are so right in pointing out that the closly held Disney of Walt's time can barely be compared to the monolith that Disney has (had to) become.

I thank you for pointing out where the dollar sign s's belong, as well. It has long been my contention that Eisner's job gets to focus on "magical" issues (probably) far less than he would like, but IMO he keeps trying - probably more than serious investors would prefer, but still his main focus has to be the bottom line, like it or not. But unlike others who fears Eisner's ways more than the 'unknown quantity' of a new leader or heaven forbid, a new owner, I will take Mikes leadership at this point, even though I too, am fearful of the cuts that prompted this article and other 'setbacks' we all have discussed. I still like to think (maybe delude myself is appropriate) that Management has something up their sleeve in response to the so-called failures we have been discussing (DCA / film/ animation)...

Next???

 

[JeffJewell]

They exist to create an investment return for their clients.

I agree. My point (despite an often circuitous route getting there) has always been that there is currently too much focus on this quarter's bottom line, and that the decisions made in the name of that line will actually end up hurting the long-term bottom line.

Mr. Buffett and other large holders do not care about park hours, spinners, etc. except to the extent they affect profit and their return.

I agree with this, too. I maintain that there is the possibility Mr. Buffett _does_ agree with me, and divested because he was concerned about long-term profitability, as well. You do not seem to allow for that possibility.

If that had occurred, Disney would be a division of a company rather than THE company.

The "Disney" that built the reputation and brand loyalty, to a very great extent, was the Imagineering group. Specifically, the feature animation and theme parks Imagineers (I know there were other ventures, even back in "the day." For the sake of avoiding bickering, can we agree that the animated features and the theme parks were the "core" businesses most associated with Disney Magic?).

That "Disney" is _already_ a division of a huge conglomerated company rather than THE company. A rapidly dwindling division, I might add. The fact that the huge conglomerated company also happens to be named Disney offers no consolation to those mourning the death of Imagineering.

I can even agree with your assessment of Eisner and Wells doing some creative things. Eisner and Wells have not been running things for about a decade, now, though.

Disney became profitable largely because of the efforts the Imagineers put into the guest experience, making it a unique experience unavailable elsewhere. You know, Magic. Whether it's because of cuts to individual project budgets or the simple elimination of these Imagineers' jobs, Disney's Imagineers can no longer put as much into the guest experience, and slowly but surely, the unique Magic is eroding. The foundation is collapsing (or, by my way of thinking, is being torn out and not being replaced).

I agree that Disney can appear profitable for a while by being creative in the ledgers rather than in the parks. Just don't try to tell me it's Magic.

Jeff

 

[larworth]

I’ve said before that a buy-out back then wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. It is just as likely a new owner would have wanted to create value as to rape and plunder. Maybe they would have had the financial resources to grow things even faster and better.

Now, I do have a fear about whether our precious parks division would have remained the clear core of the company if it was just another division in a mega media conglomerate. However, isn’t this exactly what is happening anyway as Disney grows bigger to ward off this very thing?

I do agree thedscoop that Disney no longer has the luxury of being run as anything other than a business today. The stockholders (owners) clearly mandate the need to maximize the longterm value of the company. However, the debate is whether this mandate to provide maximum return LONGTERM, I repeat LONGTERM, is being well served. Are the recent decisions regarding the management of WDI in the best interest of the company LONGTERM?

Hill’s recent article and Fab’s note doesn’t paint a rosy picture about the importance they are placing on this key area of competitive advantage. It has been my fear that wow and amaze are being replaced with good enough too often these days.

We got some confirmation from others that the Hill article was reasonably accurate. I can’t comment on the T. Baxter situation. I suspect that Fab (and Jim) befriended Tony many years ago and is sympathetic with his personal plight. Just because he waves the banner of quality and old world values does not make it so. This could be a classic internal politics play on his part.

Not Fab’s best writing, but there was one line that sure had an effect on me. My blood pressure started to rise as I thought about them no longer being interested in building “kickass” attractions, and the new creative attractions guru being the same guy who gave us Paradise Pier.

DVC, a good start, but I do need a better education on the overall organizational structure. Who reports to whom and has creative control.

It seemed funny to describe the charter of the Design Resource Team as such

“The Design Resources team is responsible for small design projects and creative enhancements throughout the entire Disneyland Resort as well as all sustainment efforts including show awareness, show documentation and quality assurance.”

If they do the small design projects than who does the big ones?

 

[YoHo]

My impression was that big design projects are handled outside the confines of ANaheim, while DRT is anaheim specific.


At any rate, I've been thinking about this, and I may have changfed my position. If we accept a modified version of JeffJewel's Premiss that the production studio (I'm sorry, but Marry Poppins, True life adventures, Disney is not just animated, how Ei$ner of you) and the theme parks are the only aspect of the company that are core Disney. Then conceptually, it already is a conglomerate.


Now, I have no problem with that, but I do have a thought. The DIsney theme parks and Animation have always born the largest Walt footprint of anything in the company. Disneyland without Walt's influence would simply not be the same. Is it possibly, that the only difference between Disney and Universal parks is something as illusive as the Walt vibe? If that's true, then I really wish Vivendi had snatched up Disney insted of Universal. Why? Vivendi has the time and resources to let the PArks and movies division do things right. Instead of being directly responsible to the Shareholders, the division would be buried under a mound of managment that could give them the freedom to do things right. Look at Universal, yes they have slowed down expansion too, but when they do expand, there is no questions about cost vs quality. Its possible that given the current street requirments of the company, they could now be better off as a division in a conglomerate. This is something that may not have even been true when Mike and Frank took over.

 

[DisDuck]

Scoop. I have to thank you for your recent posts. You put into better business terms what I have been going back and forth with JJ and DVC for almost a year.

We cannot turn back the clock. Disney has to be viewed in light of current business/investor climate. And to me given these conditions Disney is still GOT IT.

 

[JeffJewell]

Is it possibly, that the only difference between Disney and Universal parks is something as illusive as the Walt vibe?

It's very possible. It sounds like you're coming to understand the point I keep trying to make (mind you, you're certainly still free to _disagree_ with the point, but I'm glad you're at least willing to consider it). Substitute "dedication to the guest experience" for "Walt vibe," and you could write quite a few of my posts for me.

thedscoop...
...in my last post, I did my best to acknowledge your valid points, and to engage further conversation on the topic by offering my opinions on those points within your business-only context. Your next post did not seem to address anything I said, but rather appeared to simply reiterate the post I was responding to.

I don't mind you using my name in your posts, nor even that fact that you make assumptions about what my reactions might be to imaginary situations. It would be nifty, however, if you'd condescend to actually respond to the folks you're baiting.

Killfile me if you want to, but leave me out of your posts, if you do.

Jeff

 

[Another Voice]

Disney almost lost in the eighties because it was a mismanaged company, not because there is some law of nature that requires companies to be mega-conglomerates or to be lunch. Southwest Airlines doesn’t need to be the nation’s biggest airline to stay independent, it’s strength comes from the way it runs its business. MGM as a small, well run studio is doing much better now than when they were the giant, badly run conglomerate of the last decades. Would it have been difficult for a smaller, focused Disney to stay independent – mostly definitely yes. But is the company better off because of the California Angels and The Insane Clown Posse?

The problem is that Eisner has turned * Disney * from being a philosophy and a standard for the entire company into * Disney’s * a brand name attached to whatever product they’re trying to sell to a mass audience. The continuing transformation of WDI from a design think-tank into a project management firm illustrates this point. Very little of California Adventure was actually “imgaineered” – it was done by outside contractors under nominal supervision. And it shows in every inch of places like Paradise Pier. Yet, we’re assured it’s just the same as that park across the plaza because it’s got the same name attached to it. People can see the difference between ‘Space Mountain’ and ‘California Screaming’ and they’re not stupid. They’re responding in the millions by avoiding this park despite all of the mouse’s attempts to lure them in.

The key secret that needs to be learned (and that Mr. Wells and others knew very well) is that it’s more important to create “Disney” than it is to market “Disney”. I can't think of a single business model where gutting Feature Animation and Imagineering would be considered signs of business genius. If anything, these moves make it more a takeover more likely today than in the eighties.

 

[JeffJewell]

But is the company better off because of the California Angels and The Insane Clown Posse?

Interesting you should mention that in this thread, as I've come to think of Eisner and the board as "The Insane Clown Posse."

Jeff

 

[YoHo]

Thanks for telling me I'm wrong, While I may or may not agree with Jeff on this, Its nice to see people with more knowledge of the buisness have an opinion, I also see that my Theory that Frank Wells was a very positive (many varied facets) influence in that company. Which also supports my theory that he was the financial man that made that company what it was (up to his death) not EIsner.

 

[Another Voice]

I’m not saying that the entertainment industry is like the airline business – only that well run niche companies can survive and prosper. Simply growing larger by eating everyone else in the pond – like TimeLife did in acquiring Warner Brothers, Turner, etc. – doesn’t guarantee independence either. It just makes you more appealing to even bigger fish.

Exactly when did Frank Wells make a decision between bankruptcy or buying US Magazine? I must have missed those meetings. The problem with Disney when Wells first came on the scene was not a bad business model – it was a poorly executed one. The individual parts to the company were worth more individually than combined and Disney was not creating enough good, new product to keep the businesses supplied. The plan was very simple – get serious about making movies and get out of the theme park business & into the resort business. None of these were outside of the traditional Disney business model and many of these changes had already begun before Eisner & Wells showed up. The idea went back well into the Walt days – good movies sell t-shirts and make people visit the parks. In other words, each part of the company can leverage off the activities of the other. The company’s strength comes from the “old fashioned, out-dated, pre-80s economy” business model – not last week’s article from Harvard Business Review.

That’s why the recent changes are troubling. If WDI and Animation are nixed – what’s going to drive the business. If Disney moves ahead with it’s big rumored play into radio – how is drive-time Top 40 going to get people into The Disney Stores. When Frank Wells was around, there was an overall strategy for the company. These days I just see a bunch of frantic uncoordinated activity given a PR spin that the guys on CNBC snare at. Buffet was smart enough to see that short term “cost savings” have replaced strategic thinking at Disney – and that’s why he bailed.

 

[JeffJewell]

If it was up to Mr. Buffet and Co., much, much, much, more would be cut than park hours. For one, all non-bus transporation. Second, all non-value added items such as early entry and resort pools. In a nutshell, institutional holders would eliminate everything to the lowest point until ressies suffered.

Although you certainly have a right to your opinion, I have a tough time believing that you have any basis to speak for "institutional holders" "in a nutshell" when you seem to suggest that the accepted method of running a business is to squeeze your customers until they go away. Sane business models typically account for the truism that it's much easier to keep an existing customer than it is to create a new one (much less get one back that you've previously chased off).

Disney would have been purchased

You (and others) keep saying this as though it has some inherent meaning, but it does not. Although there is no way for me to prove that Disney being purchased would definitely have ended up for the better, likewise, there is no way for you to prove the opposite.

And Imagineering would 95% likely not even exist

Again, this is pure speculation on your part. Neither one of us can prove Imagineering would have suffered more, less, or precisely the same as it has with the situation we've got.

So four options became apparent to Wells.

I note that none of your "business models" include a proviso for actually creating quality products. Are you implying that there are no valid business models in today's market that would allow the success of a company that produces quality, even if it costs more? I'll say it again, you certainly have the right to your opinion, but we're going to have to agree to disagree.

I believe there is a market for quality.

Now I ask, did Frank choose the correct option

Well, I think the correct option would have been one that continued to build customer loyalty by offering a top quality product. I really don't understand how you can assert that "create high quality products" is an implicitly flawed business model.

Jeff

PS: You did not offend me, you simply annoyed me. I can appear "ruffled" when I'm annoyed and writing about something that I feel is important. Although I still cannot understand how you arrived at some of your opinions, and although we're going to have to agree to disagree on most of the specifics, I appreciate that you did respond to me.