Now It’s Time To Really Get Angry
Hilton Hotels has responded about the Fran O'Brien's ouster. Take out all the flowery legalese stuff and it boils down to two words:
Go away
Time to get angry now folks.
Previous entries here and here.
UPDATE: Direct link (even though one of my cmmenters doesn't much car for the source).
Blogosphere | Gaius Friday, 14 April , 2006
Other Links to this Post
-
CARRY ON AMERICA » Blog Archive » Help Spread the Word — Sunday, 30 April , 2006 @ 8:05 pm
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 2:38 pm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49731
“E-mails circulating on the Internet indicate Hilton is ousting O’Brien’s due to liability concerns of having so many disabled people on the premises. . .”
“E-mails circulating on the Internet” . . . as we know, are highly reliable. Just like the one from
Xenu Abacha?
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 2:48 pm
Did you click through or just take a shot?
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 3:22 pm
Gauis,
Obviously I read the article, or I couldn’t have quoted from it. Uncorrorborated Internet-emails are not a valid source of information, and that’s the extent of the evidence presented in this article. It’s not good journalism. Since you object to what David Ignatius did by using anonymous sources, (and so do I), you ought to object to it here. It’s poor journalism.
I deal with this reliance on Internet rumors sometimes, when someone in my office (not from the news side!) relays an email with some ridiculous claim or other. It’s usually me who debunks it. Those people should take a look at Snopes.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 3:33 pm
Bradley, did you look at the whole history of this? There’s more than the article. I know you have a pretty low opinion of the source of the article - I’ve seen you make comments about them before. But read a few of the other sites blogging this. Including the ones who have gotten responses from the Hilton.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Gaius,
I’ll do some more reading. However, why use this article? Anything that cites unsupported Internet emails as its main source for allegations is getting into Pierre Salinger territory. Go with your strongest evidence.
Thanks for the response, and have a good weekend. I just had a great camarones al mojo del ajo at lunch.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 3:48 pm
I’ve been posting about this since the day before yesterday. Check Wizbang, Arrrgh and Mudville Gazette
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 4:25 pm
Gaius,
Yes, I did. So far, I have found no corroboration for the claim. Stuff such as this on MG is sheerest speculation:
http://www.mudvillegazette.com/archives/004390.html
“It may be that the Hilton folks are concerned about the increased liability of having so many severely injured and disabled soldiers in their basement each Friday (several have taken falls on the steep stairs at the entrance to Fran’s (but no law suits or problems have ensued). It may be that there is very limited and problematic wheelchair access to the restaurant (although no ADA complaints have been filed). The truth is that we don’t know for sure but what we do know is that this is unfair.”
Note the way this is written. “It may be . . .” There is no evidence presented that Hilton has expressed any concern, and the e-mail specifically states that no problems have ensued. Without evidence, this is just someone’s WAG.
Morover, the sites you mention reference one another in a circular motion. However, I did spot this sign of common sense on Wizbang:
“The claims that Hilton is evicting Fran O’Brien’s for some sort of anti-veteran bias just don’t add up. It’s most certain that Hilton intends to evict the restaurant, but there’s no evidence that it’s more than just a business dispute.”
If there’s anything more solid than this (actual evidence that liability concerns was reason for the cancellation), please provide a link.
Thanks.
By Black Jack, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 4:55 pm
If Hilton has some reason other than anit-vetran bias for the eviction, it is incumbent upon them to state it clearly and forthrightly now. Failure to do so can only be seen as proof of Hilton’s perfidy.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 14 April , 2006 @ 4:59 pm
Bradley’s got a bit of a point, but my original post said “apparently”, and my objection is about ending what O’Brien’s has been doing for the troops. For free, for almost three years. With no fanfare.