A Lazy Day at Waldameer 5/20/2011

Friday, May 20, 2011 11:24 PM

My adopted brother and I decided today was a good day to head to Erie. And we decided correctly.

Left Middlefield, OH around 12, stopped in Geneva for some subway and to fill my tank, arrived at the park around 1:45.

Two wristbands (Best option IMO) were about $40...not bad seeing as you get the rides you want, but I don't care much for the scan system.

I'm gonna start posting all my trip reports like previous, Good, Bad, and Ugly....

Good:
All the rides in the park were practically walk ons, including a ride on RFII which I almost had the train to myself save for a man and his son in the front.
The park was nearly dead, which I guess is a common thing early in the season.
Friendly staff, the ride ops seemed to be on top of their game, even met one from Warren, OH.
Smoke free park except designated areas.

Bad:
RFII seems to be a little rougher than I remember, but still gives the non-stop rides.
Some of the areas seemed to be understaffed.


Ugly:
The new swing ride seemed to be having issues all day and didn't have a chance to ride. Some people even got stuck on it.
One of the employees at the X Scream stand had full arm tattoos and was a little disappointed he didn't have to cover those since after all it's a family park.

Rides:
Ravine Flyer II( 4 laps total: 2 front, 2 back)
The front had a lot of airtime, but seemed to throw you around a lot.
The back had a lot of "floater" air. I was out of my seat the whole first drop. Also was a bit rougher than I liked.

Comet: (3 Laps: 2 Back, 1 Front)
Cars definitely do not fit two adults comfortably, but still an awesome little coaster.
Back had nice speed, front nice airtime.

Steel Dragon: Facing Front Up The Lift
A dizzying coaster, but fun overall. Like other wild mouses a bit better.

Tea Cups:
Suprised they had no restrictions for adults on this one. Went very fast and almost could not walk getting off.

Tilt-A-Whirl
Rode it twice, once with my brother (didn't spin as much), and by myself walked off dizzy.

Pirate's Cove
Not a fan of this fun house.

Wacky Shack:
Not a big fan of this dark ride, but loved the fact it made my brother jump with the car.

Thunder River:
We were crazy enough to ride and the only thing I walked off with was a wet booty, and an epic photo.

Sky Ride:
Rode in the wind and didn't like it. Reminds me of the ski lifts I used to operate.

Train:
Nice way to see the park and relax.


Overall I had an amazing day, I love this park more and more I visit. I'll be returning several more times this summer since it's a great value park.

+0
Saturday, May 21, 2011 10:38 PM

"E"Coster Gurl said:

Ugly:
One of the employees at the X Scream stand had full arm tattoos and was a little disappointed he didn't have to cover those since after all it's a family park.

What difference does it make whether it's a "family park" or not? Who cares if he has full arm tattoos, so long as they're not pornographic or excessively violent/scary to kids? They're just pictures.

+0
Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:07 PM

Whether or not your reasoning is correct, that doesn't change the fact that a lot of parents don't feel comfortable having their (especially young) children around that sort of thing. Obviously for Waldameer, it isn't that much of an issue. But many other parks still take the matter seriously. Your opinion is irrelevant. But I still like you.

+0
Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:23 PM

I'm not saying that no one has the right to be uncomfortable, but I'm pretty tired of the "it's a family park" saying being tossed around whenever someone doesn't like something.

I mean, all families are different, and chances are good that the tattooed guy has a family, too.

What I get out of it, is a thinly-veiled way of saying "no freaks allowed". Just because someone is different, or makes someone uncomfortable, doesn't mean they're in the wrong. Some people are uncomfortable around people who are missing limbs, but we still allow them in "family parks". That's all I'm saying.

+0
Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:37 PM

I totally agree with Josh here, and I wanted to comment about it but didn't quite know how to express my thoughts about this. Well said, Raven-Phile.

I have three earrings. I was told by a possible future employer that if I was hired, I would have to take them out, as that is their policy, yet that policy doesn't apply to women. I would reluctantly comply with that, if i was offered the job, but I'm sure that some of the male customers who frequent that place of business wear earrings. It could be their way of weeding out "the gays", or people who use drugs, or whatever stereotype they want to place on it. It could also be a way to appease their customers ignorant assumptions.

A lot of people have tattoos. Tats are especially popular these days, for some reason. I'd love to live in a world where people didn't judge a book by it's cover, even when that cover looks that way by choice.

+0
Saturday, May 21, 2011 11:43 PM

I dunno. You guys seem kind of thin-skinned... ;)

And for the record, I don't have any tats. But I do have a tot. I just asked her, and she says that she only likes temporary tats, because she heard the permanent ones hurt. :)

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 12:30 AM

I don't remember how I found it, but read this woman's blog. She's covered in tattoos, is married to a tattoo artist, has two beautiful kids, raises farm animals and is a community activist. That seems remarkably like a family.

"E"Coster Gurl: If you can't see the light here, it's because your head is stuck in your ass.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 12:34 AM

A bit harsh, Jeff. I can understand and accept that maybe one's values are different from my own. I just don't like it.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 12:38 AM

Good for you, I guess you're better adjusted than I am.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 1:14 AM

I spent my whole life arguing that things that "aren't normal" should be fine. I've done my part to break down stereotypes, be different and screw the man. I like to think I played a little part in the shifting of the status quo that taken place over the course of my 38 years on this planet.

But now that I'm 38 I get it. It's not always appropriate in every situation.

So ironic.

I have no problem with anyone doing, being, looking, acting, living however they want. I also have no problem with someone saying it's not appropriate for a given situation.

You make your choices and you play your hand.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 1:22 AM

And then you get the hell off my lawn!

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 1:36 AM

Eh. It's like anything. You gotta figure the full sleeve tattoos, dreads and half-dozen face piercings are going to exclude you from certain situations.

Just like I figure the khaki shorts, polo shirt, family sedan, wife and kids are going to exclude me from certain situations.

Looking the part is as important as anything else. Khaki dad doesn't show up for the midnight show at the metal club and dreads dude doesn't show up in the corporate board room Monday morning.

There's nothing wrong with that simple fact of societal norms.

Fine line between getting old and growing up.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:11 AM

So are you saying that you want to keep your kids away from "those people," passing along the belief to them that they are somehow suboptimal? I'm talking either direction, yuppies or rock stars.

Maybe I'm getting to be too West Coast, but that seems absurd.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:21 AM

Absolutely not. And that's not even close to what I'm saying. If anything, I believe the opposite. I want my kids to understand there's nothing wrong with being however you want to be.

But I do want my kids to understand that there's a time and place for everything and the consequences of choosing to be certain ways.

And that's why my kids are equally comfortable around Dad's rockstar friends and at Mom's formal work function when the suits are in town.

Last edited by Lord Gonchar, Sunday, May 22, 2011 2:23 AM
+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 3:24 AM

Which means they aren't going to judge people in their appearance, which is exactly what the original poster was doing. It's one thing to believe that there are consequences for how you choose to appear, but quite another to make assumptions about people based on those appearances.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 6:39 AM

Do the big chain parks allow full sleeve tattoos? In the UK, smaller parks seem to allow them yet the big chains will not let workers have them.

When I worked in a park, you weren't allowed any visible tattoos.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 11:32 AM

Most, if any, do not, Rick. Disney and Cedar Fair wont even allow hair on men to be any longer than your collar or earrings. It must be neatly trimmed. Both park chains only allow mustaches, and they must already be grown in before beginning employment.

Many Cedar Point employees who do have visible tattoos must purchase and wear concealer makeup on them so that they are not visible. I don't know Disney's policy on tattoos.

Universal's parks lifted the ban on men's earrings in 2000. They also allow facial hair, but I do not know their policy on hair length or visible tattoos.

I say, if your costumers show that they accept a "trend" in style by wearing it, then you should allow your employees to wear it also. These days, tattoos and males with earrings are very common.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 12:07 PM

Jeff said:
Which means they aren't going to judge people in their appearance, which is exactly what the original poster was doing. It's one thing to believe that there are consequences for how you choose to appear, but quite another to make assumptions about people based on those appearances.

I think I missed that.

Didn't she just say she thought they should be covered given the situation? That's how I'm taking the comment in the original TR. That she didn't feel full sleeve tats were appropriate for a theme park situation.

Not sure I totally disagree. Feels a little 'carnie' to me. If I owned a park, I might not want to convey that image. Unless it was somewhere like HRP - where it was totally appropriate, fit the theme and seemed to be encouraged.

Again, situational.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 12:51 PM

So if they work in your average Hard Rock Cafe, it's part of a theme, but at a theme park they're "inappropriate?" That makes no sense. I took the original comment to imply that there was something wrong with them, that "families" shouldn't see that, and that's crap.

+0
Sunday, May 22, 2011 1:03 PM

Makes perfect sense to me.

I don't think the Hard Rock thing is theme as much as expected environment. Same with Disney World. Or Wal-Mart. Or the school bake sale. Or church. Or the S&M club.

I don't begrudge anyone their right to be and do whatever the hell they want, but certain things are appropriate for certain situations. I don't think it has to be any more complicated than that.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...