"You named it what?"

^^ Yes, but what does that have to do with Muslim groups getting a Pepsi Refresh grant to rebuild Conneaut Lake Park and charge $20 for parking?? ;)

Do you like pancakes?

Pancakes and Maverick.

Or Bleu Steak.

Mmmmmmm...Bleu Steak. Now I'm hungry. Thankfully I have the ingredients for that in the fridge :-).

birdhombre said:

billb7581 said:
You mean the response that GA would need to build 200 million worth of other year round attractions to merit building a hotel there?

No, he means this response where they said (clarified here) that they would like a hotel nearby if they could partner with someone, but they didn't want to do it all themselves because of marketing conflicts. Specifically, advertising in the Baltimore/Washington area might make people think there was a hotel package available at Six Flags America.

And if I'm not mistaken, isn't SFA one of their less-attended parks? If so, they probably don't want to leech any more visitors away from there to go to one that's already packed.

That begs the question why wont anyone partner with them? The obvious reason is because there already is sufficient lodging in the area.

LOL if GA is "already packed", why is a hotel necessary?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

I'm not talking anything, and I haven't been part of the discussion. You asked what Tek was referring to, and I linked you to the posts in question. Yes I gave a slight interpretation of it, but you're free to draw your own conclusions as well.

billb7581 said:
LOL if GA is "already packed", why is a hotel necessary?

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

...and you're talking out of a different orifice altogether. :)

A) we don't know if there is a deal. The lack of an announcement doesn't mean it isn't being worked out. One thing that is being worked out is RV or cabin lodging that the park said it was looking into. Which Invalidates your argument that there isn't a need for lodging. If there was sufficient lodging then the park president wouldn't be discussing multiple lodging options nor would they be looking to go the RV or cabin route. Sorry, you lose again.

B) not sure if that was directed at me but I don't follow. The park is packed. Which, you know, could support lodging, which park management is lookin into. Which again invalidates your argument. So, the only person talking out of Something other than one side of their mouth is you. Who apparently still can't take a joke or admit your while argument was flawed.

PS I think boardwalk flyer is lamer than Wild Woody. Neener neener neener.

And 'it" is a fantastically sinister sounding name for a thrill ride. :)

Just wanted to point out that while I get the whole omglol-he-said-woody-1st-grade-humor in the name "Wildwoody", I want to make sure that everybody knows the town in which Morey's Pier is located is called "Wildwood".

If they want to get more creative with the name I'm all for it, but showing a little local pride in the name is very appropriate in my opinion. Most people who go to Wildwood are yearly repeat customers and the name has a certain appeal when you hear it. It reminds you of summer, fun etc. What better way to name your new wooden mega coaster than Wildwoody?

Then again, I seem to be able to say the name without giggling. Apparently that might be tough for most people.

If dick and fart jokes ever become above me, I want someone to kick me in the nuts, tell me I'm dull, and get a good laugh out of it.

Tekwardo said:
A) we don't know if there is a deal. The lack of an announcement doesn't mean it isn't being worked out. One thing that is being worked out is RV or cabin lodging that the park said it was looking into. Which Invalidates your argument that there isn't a need for lodging. If there was sufficient lodging then the park president wouldn't be discussing multiple lodging options nor would they be looking to go the RV or cabin route. Sorry, you lose again.

B) not sure if that was directed at me but I don't follow. The park is packed. Which, you know, could support lodging, which park management is lookin into. Which again invalidates your argument. So, the only person talking out of Something other than one side of their mouth is you. Who apparently still can't take a joke or admit your while argument was flawed.

PS I think boardwalk flyer is lamer than Wild Woody. Neener neener neener.

A: Campgrounds and RV parks in New Jersey typically employ seasonal workers and are shut down from Labor Day to Palm Sunday, which supports the theory that a Hotel in Jackson NJ would sit empty all winter.

B: The park is already packed absent a hotel, meaning a hotel isn't needed. Your logic is ass backwards.

You wouldn't know a good name if it bit you in the hind quarters.

A: Even if a hotel or campground sat empty all winter, it would probably still be very profitable. Look at Cedar Point's on site hotels for reference.

B: Some of those people that the park is packed with would really, really appreciate a closer hotel than what is currently offered, and would choose to stay at the closer hotel, when it is built.

Just because there are a few hotels 15 or so miles doesn't mean that a closer hotel to the park will be unprofitable. It's called competition.

billb7581 said:
B: The park is already packed absent a hotel, meaning a hotel isn't needed. Your logic is ass backwards.

Ooooh. I just can't agree with this.

On what world do hotels draw people? You build a hotel where people go, not the other way around. The park is packed absent a hotel, now give those people a place to stay.

This time I think you have it backwards.

Geez I can't even believe he's trying to argue that. Bill we all said a seasonal hotel could work!

Bill you wouldnt know logic if it pimp slapped you.

You don't build a hotel to attract people. That's ridiculous! You build it because there are people there that don't want to drive home. Are you really that dense? Seriously?

You're arguing the same tired thin even AFTER the park confirmed interest in a hotel and that they're looming at adding some lodging, which you still argue isn't going to happen for reasons that have been pointed out to be factually incorrect.

All at a park you're not even that familiar with cause you've been twice 40 years ago.

You are already drawing enough people, to make the park "packed" absent a hotel. So why exactly is a hotel needed?

Sorry, son you're just wrong.

"You don't build a hotel to attract people"

LOL, isn't Six Flags in the business of "attracting people" to their parks?

They confirmed interest in partnering up with someone to build a hotel, and no hotel chain has partnered up with them.

Wake me up when any of this rumored lodging they are "interested in" but not interested in actually building themselves comes to fruition. I have a feeling it will be a very long time because the park is "packed" without any lodging available.

Wow...just...wow.

I will honestly stop here because there's no point trying to argue with someone who has such a severe lack of logic and understanding. Can't argue with stupid for sure.

I knew a guy once who talked out of one side of his mouth. He sounded like W.C. Fields.