Just because it spins doesn't mean it HAS to be a mouse...
The bottom line is Nate thinks this coaster wouldn't sell and if it did, no one would ride due to the odd mix of thrill and family elements.
My rebuttal is that if this ride was built people would still ride. Not necessary families, but (as he put it) "thrill riders" definitely would. They would not skip it simply because of the mostly "family" layout beyond the inital thrill elements.
The other stuff (such as what families ride and what consitutues a family ride) were merely side debates that were born of the original tete a tete.
And for the record, Nate - the Merriam Webster definition of fact and opinion back dictionary.com's 100%. It's another case of you presenting flat out incorrect information as truth in an attempt to be correct. (which seems to be the real reason I just can walk away from this)
*** Edited 3/3/2004 5:06:07 PM UTC by Lord Gonchar***
Hobbes: "What's the point of attaching a number to everything you do?"
Calvin: "If your numbers go up, it means you're having more fun."
Lord Gonchar said:The bottom line is Nate thinks this coaster wouldn't sell and if it did, no one would ride due to the odd mix of thrill and family elements.
ArrowBatic.
Lord Gonchar said:My rebuttal is that if this ride was built people would still ride. Not necessary families, but (as he put it) "thrill riders" definitely would. They would not skip it simply because of the mostly "family" layout beyond the inital thrill elements.
They may not be turned away by the rest of the layout, but they most certainly will pass it over for something more thrilling (that is, a ride that has more than just one thrilling moment). And that's my whole point. Parks that add thrill rides have to basically keep one-upping themselves in the thrill department in order to gain an interest in their thrill rides. This ride presents a couple of thrills, yes, but overall it's less thrilling than many, many other thrill rides out there. So it's going to be skipped over for something more well-rounded. Install it at SFGAm, for instance, and people are still going to skip it over for the bigger thrills (Deja Vu, V2, Batman, Raging Bull) regardless of whether it's new or not. Again, where is your ridership coming from?
And for the record, Nate - the Merriam Webster definition of fact and opinion back dictionary.com's 100%. It's another case of you presenting flat out incorrect information as truth in an attempt to be correct. (which seems to be the real reason I just can walk away from this)
Actually, it doesn't. Your whole basis for presenting the dictionary.com definition was to state that an opinion is an opinion, regardless of whether or not it can be proven. It has to have already been proven to be a fact. The Merriam-Webster definition does not speak to this effect.
A more fair example than Hypersonic would be Oblivion. If Oblivion dropped, then rose back up to 50 feet or so and continued on with a minute or more of family ride, yes, I think the general impression of the ride would turn sour. Basically, the drop would be lost in the midst of what would essentially be a "boring" family attraction with one thrilling moment. It's kid of like, "Well, the drop was great but overall the ride was just boring." Maybe people would continue to ride once if they'd never ridden it, but the return ridership would be extremely low. Nemesis, for instance, offers a thrilling ride the whole way and would be far more satisfying for thill seekers.
-Nate (who, despite what Lord Gonchar continues to try to claim, is not fabricating anything)
*** Edited 3/3/2004 9:49:48 PM UTC by coasterdude318***
That's some interesting logic there. Don't most people complain about that coaster being too short? Whether Alton added 7 loops or 3 mouse turns after the initial drop, people would still ride it.
coasterdude318 said:
A more fair example than Hypersonic would be Oblivion. If Oblivion dropped, then rose back up to 50 feet or so and continued on with a minute or more of family ride, yes, I think the general impression of the ride would turn sour.
Gonch already acknowledged the possibility that the Japanese mouse may not sell. There's no way to prove, however, that no one would ride an ArrowBatic since none have been purchased. *** Edited 3/3/2004 10:12:18 PM UTC by Vater***
VolcanoTBC said:
Lord Gonchar said:The bottom line is Nate thinks this coaster wouldn't sell and if it did, no one would ride due to the odd mix of thrill and family elements.
ArrowBatic.
-CO
*** Edited 3/3/2004 10:27:56 PM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
Gator - see what happens when you light a thread and leave it unattended? Bad Gator - bad!
-Jim ;)
Actually, it doesn't. Your whole basis for presenting the dictionary.com definition was to state that an opinion is an opinion, regardless of whether or not it can be proven.
Not at all. Opinion is indeed opinion because it hasn't been or can't be proven.
Example 1: Nitro sucks.
This can't be proven. The very fact that someone likes Nitro makes this opinion - it doesn't hold up.
Example 2: Gonch thinks Nitro sucks.
This is fact. I do indeed think that. You can ask me and I will tell you it is so. It is a fact that Gonchar thinks Nitro sucks. However, the quality of the ride is simply an opinion (refer to Example 1)
Example 3: This ride would not sell.
This is simply opinion. It is opinion because I believe it might sell.
When this ride is offered for sale, no one bites and it is taken off the market, then my opinion becomes wrong and yours becomes a fact. "That ride was offered to potential buyers and did not sell and has since been taken off the market" It is now indeed a fact that this ride could not sell.
Example 4: If this ride were installed, no one would ride it because of it's unorthodox combination of elements.
This is opinion. It hasn't been proven. It currently can't be proven. It is merely a thought, not an event or occurance. If the ride was installed and ridership was so low that it was quickly removed, then it would have happened and now be a fact.
Do we have English 101 under control yet? I mean, you're to the point where you're arguing verbage with dictionary entries. You're challenging the accepted English language.
Even when I lay off and resort to the ol' diplomatic - two sides see it differently thing - you refuse to accpet that anyone could possibly think differently than you on a question without an answer. I don't expect you to realize how insane that is, but trust me, it's mind boggling.
VolcanoTBC said:ArrowBatic
Yes, but I happen to think other factors stopped that from selling. This is a whole topic unto itself and I'll won't even begin trying to discuss it here. I think there was WAY more at play in the failure of that ride than the combining of thrill and family elements.
Again, it comes back to personal perception. Arrowbatic as an example in no way proves anything about this japanese coaster. It is merely a supporting reason for forming the opinion that this japanese coaster would not sell. And that's fine - but it solves nothing.
Everyone has thrown their opinions on the japanese coaster onto the table. From here nothing changes until the ride is actually produced. It's simply petty debates over the details behind the opinions. I guess that could be considered discussion - if it were moving forward. But this thread is not, it's going in circles and barely treading water.
I'm not sure what happened to the idea of presenting an opinion to express yourself and be heard and moving on. I have tons of opinions on tons of subjects, but if after expressing them I refused to move on until everyone saw that "my opinion is clearly the correct one and the one that everyone should follow" then I'd be wasting a lot of time (even more than I have here already!) - especially on a subject so petty as to the potential popularity of a coaster.
Then to do the same weird "trying to convince people my opinion is right" thing about the smaller ideas and opinions that led to the bigger original one is just turning this into a big long ridiculous neverending back and forth about something that no one can prove or change.
Nate thinks this ride is a bad idea.
A handful of others didn't.
Why didn't it end there? We added our two cents and we should've moved on. No one changed their views, no one had any startling revelation and they're not going to.
All that's left is to "wait and see"
1] Cedar Point: out of room?
2] Superman The Escape: coaster or not?
3] SFDL: neglected park?
4] SFA: neglected park?
5] SFAW: neglected park?
mOOSH [the voice of reason, as always!]
{whine} Why don't you likey my off-topic thread? {/whine}
Gah-HEEEE-hee-hee. ;)
-CO
*** Edited 3/4/2004 12:13:10 AM UTC by CoastaPlaya***
NOTE: Severe fecal impaction may render the above words highly debatable.
1] While I think Cadar Points problem with finding space for their new Outer Space Coaster I think we all need to agree that we need to save MAgnum from sinking first.
2] Taer it down!!11!1 coaster or not.
3] What and where's SFDL?
4] I think they got too much attention after seeing all those new colours. Lets remove another coaster just to learn them a lesson.
Happy now?
coasterdude318 said:
In my (final) defense, taking a look at the definitions of "fact" and "opinion" on www.m-w.com will give a much different idea than those presented at www.dictionary.com. Basically, Marriam-Webster seems to believe as I do (and was always taught): opinion is something subjective and that varies from person to person, thus can never be proven; fact is something that can be proven, regardless of whether or not it has been proven.-Nate
But since this so called "fact" hasn't been proven, we can argue about whether it is really a fact or not. This would make it an opinion as to if the "fact" is really a fact.
It is also a fact that this thread (and this post of mine) is really confusing.
Invy said:
Oh man, my head hurtsGator - see what happens when you light a thread and leave it unattended? Bad Gator - bad!
-Jim
LOL! That's exactly what I was thinking Jim. I had to take some tylenol before reading too much into it. lol
-Tina
Nate likes to debate. He could easily be a spin doctor, and be VERY, VERY good at it. He has strong opinions, and(as I've stated plenty of times before) likes to state them as fact. In truth, Nate=smart+hardheaded, can't back down from an argument he's not really winning, but thinks he is in his mind.
Lord Gonchar likes to debate. He could very easily be a lawyer, since he uses many factual resources to prove his facts. He has strong opinions, and(as I've stated on CBuzz games) makes really cool rollercoasters;). In truth, Gonch=smart+can't back down from a good argument he is winning.
Playa likes to dish out cold hard truth. He could very easily be Dr. Phil(Dr. Obvious anyone?). He has strong opinions which he uses colorful, entertaining stories to back up, and makes everyone laugh(well, except those attacked.). In truth CO=Smartass+can't back down from an argument, even if he isn't involved;).
Jeff Likes to chime in and give us some well thought out info in really small posts. He could easily be a good website designer;). Has strong opinions, yadda yadda yadda.
gator shouldn't have left this montser going like this. Bad gator, Very Bad!
Moosh is funny.
I'm getting bored.
Opinions:
Moosh is funny.
I'm getting bored.
Joe C. and Danny are the cutest guys on here(not my opinion, thats Tinas!)
Vekoma Sux!
B&M rocks!
Is it settled now? *** Edited 3/5/2004 7:22:23 PM UTC by TeknoScorpion***
That was probably the most informative post in this thread.
That's me.
Jeff - Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog
You must be logged in to post
