If you need a chuckle

Friday, May 13, 2005 11:02 PM
Here's one top 10 list that rivals the humor of Letterman.

http://local.msn.com/special/amusementparks.asp?GT1=6432

+0
Friday, May 13, 2005 11:05 PM
Another thing to chuckle at:
"Whatever they are smoking they should stop and smoke something else, its not working for them" Personally, that list is something to laugh at in just the order, but maybe thats just me.
+0
Friday, May 13, 2005 11:08 PM
hmm interesting. I tried to find a place to contact someone about the article, but no luck. Somebody needs to change that list fast!
+0
Friday, May 13, 2005 11:14 PM
Other recent thread on the subject. :)

I'll post the same thing here as I did about the AOL list:


In reference to the lists of "best whatever" - keep in mind these are just opinions. The same as if we all made lists. They'd all be different.

The main difference between our lists and the ones on AOL and MSN are that it's not any of our jobs to make the list that gets posted to those sites.

In the end it's just the opinion of the person whose job it was to make a list in arbitrary categories of their own choosing. Not every list is meant to be an authority or even proclaims to be.


*** Edited 5/14/2005 3:15:31 AM UTC by Lord Gonchar***

+0
Friday, May 13, 2005 11:26 PM
I knew someone had a thread on the subject, but couldn't remember if it was AOL or MSN, but when it came up on my MSN window today, I chuckled and had to post it.

The BEST Six Flags park is Astroworld? I guess the editors of MSN are: A) older than sand, B) picking them from a hat, or C) enjoying elephant ears enough to be rejected on the coasters (See: Intamin restraints).

But again, Astroworld? When is the last time SF has purchased a new coaster at that joint? Vekoma clone in 1999 counts, but does it really?

Again, a good chuckle had by all.

+0
Friday, May 13, 2005 11:35 PM
Not sure I get the chuckle.

I see a safe, middle of the road, afterthought, fluff piece that's been floating around on the site for years meant to be of meaning to the largest audience geographically. (note the placement of the parks on the map - it covers everyone)

Maybe it's just my heightened mood this week on the cusp of finally getting out to the parks for the first time since fall or maybe it's just another enthusiast thing I don't quite 'get', but I always wonder what the fascination of enthusiasts in ripping apart things written by and geared towards the once-a-year-Joe-GP-Park-Visitor. (like these lists and the old discovery channel specials, etc)

Nothing personal. This is just the thread I in which chose to say my piece. :)

+0
Friday, May 13, 2005 11:37 PM
Yes I agree that it is funny and it is opinion, but what in the world do they base their opinion on? I mean come on...

At least they should have ways of backing up their opinion. Or a way of contacting them so that a person can find out what the author's credentials are.

On another note, could this possibly be an advertising scheme?

+0
Friday, May 13, 2005 11:43 PM
But Gonch...

THE.

LIST.

IS.

WRONG!

Can't you understand that? ;)

+0
Friday, May 13, 2005 11:54 PM
Really, I'm not picking. Seriously.

I have the fotune (or misfortune) of remembering those GP days quite well. I'm 32 and have only been into this on the enthusiast level for 5 years, give or take.

It was just a few years ago that I had no idea many parks existed beyond what was shown on the discovery channel. For example, I grew up in western PA and have lived 25 of my years here and it wasn't until a few years ago I even knew there were 14 different parks in my home state alone.

I think the average person is on that level. They visit their local park(s) once or twice a year, call it a day and forget about it. It's fun, memories are made, all are cool with it.

If anything the list is a meaningless blowoff to enthusiasts and might just be enough to pique the interest of some kid in suburbia who knows nothing beyond the park his parents take him to every summer.

I just don't see the harm.

+0
Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:16 AM
In my own sarcastic way I was agreeing with you, Gonch.
+0
Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:22 AM
I know. :)

I'm both:

A. Making sure this isn't seen as a personal attack

and

B. Venting all my enthusiast/GP issues in one nice package.

Consider it public enthusiast therapy.

+0
Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:40 AM
And you got the chuckle.....exactly. Each park, on the list, is equally distributed geographically around the nation. Something the GP will never "get". Yes, I missed the last thread. Yes, we're all "giddy" about getting out to the parks. And yes, you got exactly what I was implying.

Besides the fact that these parks are in large or 'touristy' markets (NYC, Tampa/Orlando, Houston, LA). I'm sure everyone's 'list' is different based on regional opinion. Like Moosh, for example, would probably place Silverwood high on his list, since he's able to visit and has said great things about this park, something that I would be extremely fortunate to accomplish in my life living 1500 miles away. I take his opinion to heart because of his past experiences that he has posted on the Buzz. On this side of the nation, I would place HW high on the list, a park that friends of mine have never heard of, but they are not enthusiasts.

And you're right, Moosh, the list IS wrong. I'm sure of it. ;)

+0
Saturday, May 14, 2005 12:42 AM
Nice package, Gonch! ;)
+0
Saturday, May 14, 2005 5:35 PM
I'll bet if you shipped it with FedEx they'd make you bubble wrap it...
+0
Saturday, May 14, 2005 6:24 PM
Not to defend the list, but it doesn't say astroworld is #1 and so on. These are there top 10 in alphebetic order not from best to worst. Outside of that even if you put them in another order there are still many parks that would best several on it (like has already been said in this thread many times).
+0
Saturday, May 14, 2005 7:38 PM
If you really would like to see a park (or several) added or removed from this list, do what I did.
I first became aware of Citysearch when I was looking for some decent restaurants in a city I was going to be visiting. I found out that by signing up, I could also rate various attractions listed on the site.
If you click on each park in the list, you'll see it gives you an average rating plus user reviews for each park. If you click on any of the cities listed to the right of the list, a number of attractions near that city will be listed. Again, those attractions have ratings and reviews.
For some reason, Hersheypark is listed under Philadelphia, while Dorney isn't mentioned at all. When I first clicked on the link for Hershey, it had a rating of 7, but no reviews posted. My straight 10 rating brought the "average" up to 8.5, yet mine is the only review listed. What's up with that?
Even stranger, many of the reviews for the top parks are not that flattering-- many straight out say "not recommended." Yet those parks have astronomical ratings.
It would be interesting to see what the next list would look like if more folks from here added their ratings.
+0

You must be logged in to post

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