Browntggrr

Then please explain what relation you see between the two. I honestly want to see your point of view.

Believe me, I am not agreeing with you. If you are going to quote me, quote the whole thing, and on top of that READ THE POST. Your example of the high school/ middle school scenario could have been VERY related to each other because both dealt with potential terrorism. But in the Disney case, an employee fell on a ride while working and passed on; while a guest collapsed outside a restaurant and passed on. How are those even close to being related?

You should have kissed Paramount goodbye back in July of '06.

No they did not happen on the same day. The Disney employee died on 11/29/07, five days after she fell while working. The Disney guest passed on 11/30/07 after collapsing outside a restaurant the day before. But now you are just splitting hairs. You first mentioned that if it dealt with the same company (your reference to CF with SC and CP), it should be mentioned. Now you are saying that since the parks are next to each other, or in this case 7 miles apart it is also fine to be mentioned. Exactly what should the proper distance between attractions before it is not appropriate to be mentioned? And in reference to the Generic school thing, yeah both should be mentioned in the same article due to the high chance that both are related to each other; which is obviously not the case when it comes down to the Disney situation.

^^ I work for GE Transportation. So that means if there would happen to be a horrible accident at my facility, and then a accident at IoA, both accidents it should be mentioned in the same article since both are owned by GE? Perhaps, if both accidents were ride related safety issues then it could be mentioned, but that is a stretch as well.

5.5 hours or about 360 miles from KI. 2.5 to 3 hours or about 180 miles from CP.

Video: http://216.128.12.36/sites/waldameer/index.htm Just try to ignore the annoying voice-over.

^ But they are distorting the actual facts, one incident had nothing to do with the other. Yet they way it is written, or just even mentioning another incident, gives the impression that both incidents are somehow connected. It is just irritating.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dayton/stories/.../03/story6.html

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/cu...story?track=rss

Does anyone understand why the media always brings up other completely unrelated incidents in sensitive articles. Why mention that someone died at AK in an article about how a guest passed on after a collapse at MK. The media can be rather irritating.

There is no doubt that the ride has to go. I just question the timing and the reasons it has to go after February 1st, 2008. I also have a difficult time believing that if the ride would be standing for 2008 that it would have a negative effect on SFKK's gate. What are people going to do, drive into the parking lot, see that the ride is still there, get a bad feeling, and drive back out? That is a stretch. Being a guest at the park, I would personally feel better knowing that the ride was SBNO only due to a complete and thorough investigation. Not that they are not doing that now, but, how can two parties not agree on a cable inspector in over 6 months? Litigation is always slow, but c'mon, wouldn't SF want to know the exact reasons why this accident happened for other like rides to possibly prevent the same thing in the future? Or are they hiding something?

I really wonder what the hold-up has been in choosing a company to examine the cable. Additionally, why would a judge order a ride to be dismantled before the investigation is completed? This is rather strange....

Marineland is worth one trip. One. Like every 10 years. DM is a decent ride. And from what I have heard, they are starting to finish off the themeing for the volcano. Not too bad for a ride that has been around for over 20 years. My last visit was back in 2006, and even 2 years after Sky Screamer opened, the top of the mountain/ hill it was on was not completed. Putting it simply, SS is on a 150' hill that will take you about 10 minutes to get up. Once up there, you have a Port-a-John to use. No kidding. Then again, that was in '06. The rest of the park has a couple nice things, but for the price, it really is very expensive. The animals seem to be underfed, and the rest of the park has various areas that seem unfinished. Along with that, you will probably do more walking from ride to ride (or attraction) and see nothing more than any other park in the World. I really am not exaggerating. The park is so spread out there really are no words that can explain it. Marineland always has BIG plans that never, not even close, get finished on time. One plus would be that my family went on a Saturday afternoon, and the waits were virtual walk-ons.

Voyager? or is it V'GIR? Is that some kind of ride Paramount planned before they sold?

Actually what is the real hoot here is the fact you are quoting items that are over 2 years old. And then felt the need to respond.... ...to each one... WOW!

^ You actually think that 35 "achers" is needed for 7400'? Your kidding right? The only park that has respect for any record is the park that actually holds the record.

No I am not wrong. Go to other online sites and take a good look at what others have to say about SoB. As unfortunate as it is due to the amount of money has been spent on SoB, it is a very disliked ride. By a large figure.

^ WHAT?!? You mean it has to do with money and not because other parks respect Beast's title for longest coaster? What an insane concept!

You could say she also stole her characters from Star Wars as well. For any story, there needs to be a villian for there to be a hero. Not to mention, JK Rowling started writing the first HP novel in the early 90's. http://januarymagazine.com/profiles/jkrowling.html And I really don't see how the plots are nearly identical since each book clearly communicates on how the characters have matured, learned more, and solved different mysteries. HP is one of the most enjoyable series of novels of all time. It has brought young and old together unlike most stories. And it's popularity, well, that really speaks for itself.

Other ideas: http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?...ic=10808&hl http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?...pic=5108&hl http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?...pic=3475&hl http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?...pic=3425&hl

http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/2007/11/...tter-theme-park

http://www.nypost.com/seven/11202007/news/...land_888158.htm

^ Read between the lines. Disney and Universal as well as everyone else in the business had the opportunity to purchase the park from SF. Busch could have also purchased the ride side, but chose to sell Sea World instead. I am also willing to bet that there was no bidding war (i.e. Paramount Parks) when CF purchased SFWoA. And given the amount of money that CF did put into the park prior to 2007 gives clear indication that selling off the rides and property was not the original plan.

I was thinking the same thing. But on the other hand, how big can a waterpark possibly get? There is a lot of land there. More than I ever thought they had. I doubt all the land would be purchased by one entity.