shark6495

I am 24 and I enjoyed the water park at great wolf lodge. You are right, its not an all day thing, but it was nice for about 3 or so hours in the middle of winter. So I can see how and why its fun.... with that being said sorry your visit was not great.... thats why i personally never try to hit 2 "big" things in one day.......

Beatle, I am not one to tell anyone how to spend their money or how to spend time with their family. So with that being said, I wish you a safe and wonderful trip to Cedar Point, careful the state patrol have been out in full force up here lately (on 71 north of the 76 interchange they have been pulling people over for doing 5 mph faster than the speed limit, just a heads up).... with that being said, I dont get how anyone (not just you, so dont take offense) can be upset with a ride with out riding it. Fun fast rides i get, but fast rides that may cause damage to the ride or harm to the guests - that should be fixed.....

I should correct myself.... A ride should feel as though it is reckless while remaining completely safe. I rode The Racer with the soft seats and buzz bar restraints and proudly wore the bruises on my thighs as a badge of honor. I'm "old school" I suppose. --Beatle, who has been known to type faster than he thinks, from time to time I may have missed it, but have you ridden it since the trims? or are you still not going to ride it because of the trims? Just because it was slowed down a bit does not mean it still does not feel reckless...... It was proved to the satisfaction of a jury (a situation the park could have avoided had it settled the case, sigh), that the injury claimed in a particular case was caused by the ride. some people like to ignore certain facts when trying to make a point.... see "The Beast never had trims till Cedar Fair took over..." It was proved to the satisfaction of a jury (a situation the park could have avoided had it settled the case, sigh), that the injury claimed in a particular case was caused by the ride. Ok there was that case. I was really thinking of people making claims due to their ride experience, not real evidence. Medical reports do not count as real evidence?

were these the same people that told you that paramount snuck into the park killed some guests and did it to get a cheaper park.... man you are killing me today... funny funny stuff.....

how would you feel if you didnt know you had an illness or some sort of back/neck issue.... you rode the other rides in the park and you were fine, but the intense levels of SOB caused the injuries to appear and worsen... yup you are right always the patrons fault never the rides....

so thats like if I put in a basketball hoop in the back parking lot, which required pouring of new cement, etc. Then when I move out since I can not remove it with out destroying the land then its officially my landlords? I think I understand.... But what constitutes substantial damage? Parks leave footers behind on rides all the time.... (Terp I know that you may not know and if you do you may not be allowed to say).... Plus if SF would repave the whole place after removing the rides.... yup I can see this sitting in court for a few weeks.... lol

dont laugh I once used Balsa wood (the light weight flimsy stuff) and built a bridge that weighed 30 ounces but held 60 pounds.... its not about the wood its all about the craftsmanship....

dont laugh I once used Balsa wood (the light weight flimsy stuff) and built a bridge that weighed 30 ounces but held 60 pounds.... its not about the wood its all about the craftsmanship....

I now agree with you terp... the odds of this being hammered out this year are bleak... maybe even next year.... How would this work... You have part of the park reopen under the lease terms etc, and the other half of the park remains closed while SF mulls what to do with it..... Sine you seem to be the man in the know.... did SF put the rides on the leased land? if they did wouldnt that make them the rightful owners? I mean I put my futon in my apartment but its still my futon....

Don't give up the day job! Honestly, defending a lawsuit, even if you win, is: * Stressful * Inconvenient * Expensive * Often unnecessary, as the insurance company and/or learned counsel advise the defendant to settle, to avoid the three items listed first above... haha I dont claim to know the law but from all my jobs I have had, my boss has always told me "if you are doing your job, you will be fine. We will take care of any issues." So thats what my point was, but yeah even if they would win it would still not be worth the trouble (and might be cheaper), if instead they just wrote her a check, or offered her free admission in the future. Not that I disagree with you statement, but I have seen shirts at KI that people had on that have the F word written right on it. Might be on the back and not real noticeable, but that would be offensive to some, and considered more offensive than the tat the lady has. Well as a paying customer you do (i think) have the right to complain to management of the park about its dress code, and what is allowed into the park.... They want to be funny.... isnt trashy funny these days?

so I may be confused about the ownership of the rides..... 1. part of me says that hey if the park was being run by SF then the rides belong with them. They have every right to claim each and every ride, and if they wanted to they could just burn the rides on site (obviously not burn but you get the point) 2. the other part of me says if the land is being leased from Kentucky then they can claim some broken lease and use the rides as collateral.... 3. SHouldnt the owner of the rides be clear cut? usually its who ever owns the park..... I guess what I dont understand and someone point it out to me.... Was KK owned by kentucky and the land, rides and park just leased to SF, or did SF own KK and just lease the land?

i am all for kids dancing before the show... unless that dancing is running around screaming while mom and dad talk/text on their cellphones/pdas.......

you know... offering her a free shirt probably would have made this a-ok

Excuse me? Physical and mental disabilities are NOT a choice. Her getting a tatoo was HER choice, therefore, it's HER OWN FAULT that she is treated differently. there are laws saying you can not discriminate against a person based upon sexual orientation, color, creed, physical or mental illness.... Altering your body is slightly different.... Plus if there is a law suit as long as the girl was not being discriminating and was just trying to keep what she deemed offensive out of the park they should be fine....

well one was an employee asking a customer and the other was you being told by a customer.... also covering a tattoo is nothing more than putting on a shirt... you said you would wear a bag...... if you cared enough to not use wild and crazy situations....

A Park employee(not management as I pointed out in my post) has asked a women,(because of 2 tattoo's), that she thought was offensive(she could of easily asked upper management for a opinion and have them deal with it.) This wasn't two pot leaves tho...(did you know pot can be legally obtain as a medical Marijuana prescription in California? SO don't really see where you were going with this example) Also this wasn't two bloody knives either... Private Property or not, The customer felt as if she was singled out by the employee(which she was) and discriminated against because of a harmless tattoo. Also yes it was private property but the employee was in no right to denied her entrance to the park, also her tattoo didn't interfere with the dress code at all. There should of been no confrontation in the first place. Associates are told too enforce rule yes, BUT when it deals with having too reject a paying customer off the property then a manager HAS too step in. Managers are trained too deal with these type of situations and know what to say and how to handle the conflict. Also to the other half of your post, please do not compare apples to oranges. you did compare covering your dyed hair with a bag as being the same as asking someone to cover up a tattoo...

yes, beggars can't be choosers. Wow.... arent you begging for their to be no smoking in the park?

1. To my understanding , the employee wasn't park management and had no right to denied her entrance too the park because of her tattoo. 2. Like all things, anything out of the norm, people will react too it. You really have me confuse here also, you typed Almost anyone finds anything offensive now and days. I was actually told one day that a customer at my store found my hair color to be offensive, are you saying I should put a bag over my head because a lady found it offensive(my hair was black with gray tips) Just making a point. 3. Can't really comment, Because I as well wished they would of called her. 4. I would of been bothered also to be honest. A park employee basically told her , that her tattoo was offensive and she had to cover it up, it probably hurt the woman's feelings. Its was like a low blow too her. As you can tell from the article the women is very passionate about tat's. Starting the day out with a negative encounter like this is no fun. 5. Its the public. Point blank and simple. You're going to run into a lot of people with different styles and different backgrounds and different cultures. You may not agree with them because its out of your "norm" but that doesn't mean they should be a minority. She may not be park management but her job is to welcome guests and do an initial screen. So maybe she thought she was doing the right thing. She probably could have called a park manager over to double check. To help pay for school I work at a place that uses door greeters. Now Management is the only one who can tell people officially what they can and can not wear inside the store but if a person came in wearing no shirt I would tell them a shirt is needed. Its a power the managers have given to the door greeters, I assume that this same power is bestowed at the park entrance.... About covering of the ink, if you do something to your body you should be prepared for the consequences. If I were to go out and get a tatto of a pinup girl on my forearm then I should be prepared to wear long sleeved shirts when I work as a speech therapist. Its not appropriate. If your hair color did not break your work's dress code then you are fine. But if your work says "no multicolored non-natural hair coloring" then you should be prepared that your hair color must be made 1 color. No bag. And thats a ridiculous situation and you know it. The most your work would have you do is recolor your hair not put a bag on over it. At least we agree about the phone call I would have been bothered for a brief moment but then again I would have covered up my tat if the park told me I had to. Too many people feel that its a personal slam against them and not people just trying to follow the rules. Im not saying something out of the norm should be considered rude. I am saying shirts that have innuendos on them, or violence should be cracked down upon in the park. Same thing about people who have offensive body art. I kid you not I see so many people that have the Stars and Bars tattooed on their arms or the swastika.....I am not saying if its part of your culture but seriously what culture has clothing that explicitly talks of rape or bodily damage?

well I am probably in the minority here but listen up and dont make a snap judgment.... 1. The employee's job is to help decide what is and what is not offensive. She said it condoned violence, so maybe she thought she was doing the right thing. 2. If you have ink you should be expected people will react in certain ways. Also if you have ink you should be ready to cover it up if people deem it offensive. 3. Six flags should have called to apologize to the lady, but they may be preparing for a lawsuit. 4. She got into the park, so whats the big deal? She was still able to enjoy the day. 5. I wish all parks and all employees started to crack down a little bit more on offensive tv shirts/body art/etc.... feel free to respond

This has been bugging me so I want to get it out of my system. #1 You mention "the greatest driver ever" but you did not mention the name Richard Petty? Hm, don't get that one at all. #2 Dale Earnhardt basically ended up killing himself by not wearing a Hans device. I do respect Mr. Earnhardt, but as most drivers who drove on the same track as him would attest, he was reckless. ANY driver would tell you the same thing: Safety first, winning second. So it is true that they don't hit the brakes when the green flag waves, they also know that they can't win in a car that is in peaces. This coaster is the same way, I have ridden it both with trims and without, I prefer it with trims. It's not disrespectful at all, as a matter of fact I think it upholds the values of NASCAR. Saying drivers never hit the brakes is as dumb as saying drivers never turn right.... if you want to know when a driver hits the brakes all one has to do is look at tracks such as: Atlanta, Bristol, Martinsville, Watkins Glenn, Richmond, Dover, Pocono, Indy... Actually the brakes are at least touched once a lap on most tracks unless you are talking about Daytona or Talladega....But Earnhardt didnt kill himself by being reckless. He was making a block move and got tapped.... No one was to blame it was just an accident as Earnhardt was making a block for his teammates/son #1 We both said "don't hit the brakes when the green flag waves" neither one of us said "never hit the brakes". #2 I said "killing himself by not wearing a Hans device", not "kill himself by being reckless". (I do feel that he was reckless and a danger to others on the track though, but I do not think that is what killed him). Please read and understand before you post. (I am sorry if this comes across harsh, I'm in a bad mood, car broke down on the way home) I did read and understand what you wrote and I stand by my post, as many drivers must hit the brakes during the first lap of the green flag. Cars do dip and dive into the first turn right as the green flag waves...... secondly I understand you said Earnhardt "killed himself" by not wearing a device that was not mandatory. But you also did state he drove recklessly. Reckless means out of control. Earnhardt was in control of his car (as in he meant what he was doing) and I doubt he was ever a danger to other drivers. But it depends on how you look at it. Earnhardt came from a different era when a bent up car meant the race was hard fought.... and I am sorry you are in a bad mood, a car breaking down does suck.

This has been bugging me so I want to get it out of my system. #1 You mention "the greatest driver ever" but you did not mention the name Richard Petty? Hm, don't get that one at all. #2 Dale Earnhardt basically ended up killing himself by not wearing a Hans device. I do respect Mr. Earnhardt, but as most drivers who drove on the same track as him would attest, he was reckless. ANY driver would tell you the same thing: Safety first, winning second. So it is true that they don't hit the brakes when the green flag waves, they also know that they can't win in a car that is in peaces. This coaster is the same way, I have ridden it both with trims and without, I prefer it with trims. It's not disrespectful at all, as a matter of fact I think it upholds the values of NASCAR. Saying drivers never hit the brakes is as dumb as saying drivers never turn right.... if you want to know when a driver hits the brakes all one has to do is look at tracks such as: Atlanta, Bristol, Martinsville, Watkins Glenn, Richmond, Dover, Pocono, Indy... Actually the brakes are at least touched once a lap on most tracks unless you are talking about Daytona or Talladega....But Earnhardt didnt kill himself by being reckless. He was making a block move and got tapped.... No one was to blame it was just an accident as Earnhardt was making a block for his teammates/son

heck even major league baseball has something in the rules that a certain amount of time must pass after the last lightening strike.... some people feel a need to be justified

ha go right ahead... i mean Ill be sitting next to some dude/girl and they go "do you mind if I smoke" and Im like well technically i would like to not smell like smoke... but "sure go right a head" because I dont ask if I talk on my phone next to you..... to each their own

donnie you are a "good" smoker... I hate when I am asked if I mind if the person next to me smokes... I mean honestly I do mind but I do not ever want to tell someone what they can or cannot do.....

who is a clear channel station but in another way....