Originally Posted By 2001DLFan <<Hans Reinhardt: There isn't anything inherently wrong with challenging someone's position. Especially if the position is a feeble, and an alternate conclusion appears more reasonable and sound.>> Challenging for challanging’s sake (why? why? why?) is relatively useless. Arguments on one side are just as feeble as the other: “I saw something that says X†vs “Prove it. If you can’t, it’s not trueâ€. Not being able to provide the source of the X to the other’s satisfaction doesn’t make it untrue. So neither argument provides may any real undeniable value. However, while the person providing X gives the sources he found them from, the other’s denial of it doesn’t provide any more viable alternate conclusions and just appears to be argumentative stubbornness.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***“I saw something that says X†vs “Prove it. If you can’t, it’s not trueâ€. Not being able to provide the source of the X to the other’s satisfaction doesn’t make it untrue. So neither argument provides may any real undeniable value. However, while the person providing X gives the sources he found them from*** Exactly! X is NEVER untrue.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Challenging for challanging’s sake" Since that is not what is happening, then your post means very little. No one is asking anyone to PROVE anything, simply to stop trying to force your opinion as the CORRECT one, through fabrication. This has been said several times now. More than several. For long periods.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt "Challenging for challanging’s sake (why? why? why?) is relatively useless." Well then, you tell me, are we here? Last time I checked this was a discussion board, and as such people are bound to disagree. That's the way the game goes. "However, while the person providing X gives the sources he found them from, the other’s denial of it doesn’t provide any more viable alternate conclusions and just appears to be argumentative stubbornness." The problem in the context of this particular discussion is the stubborness of the person or persons presenting the evidence. Nothing has been presented so far (going on 7 years and counting) that proves the assertions of those making the claims. That is, unless you consider Internet rumors, conjecture, and media paraphrasing to be factual data. As far as I can see there is absolutely no shred of logic or reason to the allegations that are constantly being made here.
Originally Posted By jonvn And this is why they are challenged, because without being challenged, people will actually start believing these people. Even when they are challenged, they are believed. People here are talking about how they've presented information, when they've present almost nothing. Yet, they demand that their statments be taken as fact. But they don't know any more than anyone else, and their facts are little more than speculation at best. When they try to prove their comments with really bad sources, it just shows how weak they are in their ideas. They take webmasters and whoever they can, and use only the information that suits them to further that their opinion is right. It's a sham. And people should not fall for it, but they do. And I'm glad that finally after several years here that I am not the only one seeing these tactics for what they are.
Originally Posted By disneywatcher >> DCA is a great park as it is. It just needs better marketing. << And once the adverse effects of 9-11 and bad weather are dealt with, it will be in great shape. Then again, there's the now growing problem of the home-mortgage industry and the ongoing struggles of the Iraq War, so the success of DCA will just have to wait. Oh, by the way, it's amusing when someone accuses anyone else of rehashing the same comments and the same opinions, and dredging up the same topics, on DCA. I'm sure no one posting to this thread is guilty of that!
Originally Posted By WorldDisney Everytime I read boards like this, its almost like we are arguing over the evidence of the U.S. going to war with Iraq . Always fun . Post #148 now lol.
Originally Posted By jonvn Don't even start with that here, please. I personally think it very bizarre that some people are like stuck in a timewarp from 2001. I mean, that's really not normal. Don't you think this is just strange behavior?
Originally Posted By DlandDug What is strange to me is people who inssist on labeling those they disagree with as a pack of liars. From another thread, running concurrently: I tend to avoid discussions about whether DCA is "bad," as that is strictly a matter of taste and opinion. That DCA is a failure, on the other hand, is hardly a matter of opinion. The problem is, too many people confuse the two, assuming that anyone who says that DCA is a failure is simply stating a biased opinion. All opinions should be supported by some sort of facts. Of course, when it is entirely subjective ("DCA sucks!"), there's little anyone can do but try and shout louder. That DCA is a failure is a simple matter of looking at what the stated expectations were, as compared to the results. No one has to guess what was expected. It was clearly stated, implied, and acted on in the months and years leading up to its opening. The results are readily available on a daily basis. There is, of course, the Barry Braverman's "7 million guests a year" prediction, as stated in the LA Times on January 14, 2001. The Times no longer links to the article in question (you can pay for it, though), but it is quoted in a Wikipedia entry: >>The Los Angeles Times in a January 14, 2001 article projected attendance for DCA to reach 7 million, however in 2002 it reported only 4.7 million.<< <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D</a> isney's_California_Adventure The same number crops up here, in Nation's Restaurant News: >>According to Disney Parks & Resorts president Paul Pressler, "The new Disneyland Resort will redefine the Southern California vacation experience." Park officials predict that 7 million visitors will kick the tires on the new additions in the first year.<< <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/arti" target="_blank">http://findarticles.com/p/arti</a> cles/mi_m3190/is_4_35/ai_69859726 Here's Barry Braverman, talking to the LA Business Journal just before DCA opened: >>Q: What will it take to make this theme park successful? A: What will make it a success is the guests' response to it. If the guests come in significant numbers, enjoy themselves, say good things about it, and tell their friends to come, it will be a success. It's all about, do people love this place? Do they want to come again and again? That we will see over time.<< <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/arti" target="_blank">http://findarticles.com/p/arti</a> cles/mi_m5072/is_4_23/ai_69713326/pg_2 Did this happen? Did guests come in significant numbers? Did they say good things about it and tell their friends to come? No. (And that's not an opinion. It's statistically supported fact.) Did they ENJOY themselves? Well, some do. But not enough to keep DCA from being a failure. But don't believe me (or any of the Usual Suspects in the blogosphere). Here's the Los Angeles Business Journal on the subject: >>Walt Disney Co. has taken the unprecedented step of offering free admission at its new California Adventure theme park all summer long for children who are accompanied by an adult.<< <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/arti" target="_blank">http://findarticles.com/p/arti</a> cles/mi_m5072/is_27_23/ai_76521380 I know, I know. 9/11 was bad news for EVERYONE in the tourist industry. Except this article is dated July 2 of 2001. Disney was discounting DCA just before the biggest holiday of the Summer. Or, to further quote the Journal: >>Since, the $1.4-billion park opened next to Disneyland in February, attendance has been well below projections.<< From an article discussing the effects of a possible recession on the LA economy in the latter half of 2001: >>The region's tourism industry, which Kyser predicts will grow only 0.4 percent for overnight visitors, has fallen victim to suffering in the three Ds: Disney, dot-com and dim bulbs. Disney's California Adventure, which opened to lukewarm response earlier this year, was in part responsible for dampening tourism visitors through the region, Kyser said...<< <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/arti" target="_blank">http://findarticles.com/p/arti</a> cles/mi_m5072/is_31_23/ai_77338313 What is most interesting in this article is that the recession, which has been used by others to somehow support the notion that DCA was simply a victim of a poorly performing economy, is mentioned as a possibility for the latter part of the year. DCA, on the other hand, is cited as a primary factor in the downturn in tourism. (And I must add, parenthetically, that this is all well before 9/11.) Three years later in the Journal: >>Disney doesn't disclose attendance, but industry estimates put Disneyland at 12.7 million visitors in 2003, about the same as 2002. Struggling California Adventure drew only 5.3 million visitors, though that was up 13 percent from 2002... At California Adventure, Twilight Zone Tower of Terror is set to debut in May and expected to give another boost to a park that has yet to meet expectations... But even with a 10 percent increase, the park still would fall short of the originally projected 7 million visitors each year.<< <a href="http://findarticles.com/p/arti" target="_blank">http://findarticles.com/p/arti</a> cles/mi_m5072/is_9_26/ai_n6000889 Ah yes. Seven million visitors a year. Not a guess, not an opinion. Just a simple reiteration of clearly documented statements.
Originally Posted By jonvn "What is strange to me is people who inssist on labeling those they disagree with as a pack of liars." No. It's not that disagreement makes someone a liar. Fabrication and quoting out of context in order to fabricate does. All sorts of people disagree with me. that does not make them liars. Claiming that something exists when it does not, that is a lie. And for all that material you just quoted, aside from the 7 million figure spoken of by Braverman, you've got nothing really to show for your comments about Disney proclaiming the park to be a failure. You might want to say "Read between the lines." But the thing is that, as I said in the other thread, there are more lines than just those you wish to promote here.
Originally Posted By jonvn Look, I'm very sorry if I come across as really hostile and nasty. It's just very hard to listen to these sorts of things for so long and not be totally frustrated with the whole thing, because it seems so badly thought out. Your comments, DlandDug are fine as your ideas as to what happened. They are perfectly reasonable speculations to make, but that doesn't make them facts. The facts are up for interpretation. Your interpretation is one thing, mine is another. Neither is likely fully right or wrong. But we don't know, because we don't have the information at our fingertips. So when you say "it was like THIS," when you really don't have the information to back that up is kind of off-putting, when I have a very different idea as to what it could be, based on the same information you do. Now it could be you are completely right, and I am completely wrong, but we don't KNOW that. And when you say that what I'm saying is completely wrong out of hand because of information you have, when you really don't have any information, or certainly no more than I do, is rather insulting in a way. I would suggest taking it down a notch or two, and not trying to insist on your version of reality being the absolute truth of the matter. If you didn't do that, we could discuss this like rational people, and probably come up with what is the most reasonable circumstance. But when people insist that they alone know it all, particularly when they don't, well, that's never going to happen then. The truth of any given situation is a big mix of things, and no one has a lock on the truth, not even people who work at the place. Employees are also susceptible to scuttlebutt and rumor that isn't always correct. You need to realize this, and that the one 7 million phrase uttered by one guy in one interview is not the entire amount of financial concept behind the expansion in 2001. There were other factors, other metrics, and the expansion probably did well in some ways, and did not do well in other ways. We can figure out, though, that it has done well enough to make the corporation think that a 1.2 billion expansion is a good investment. If it truly were doing so badly it was a failure, they simply would not do that. That's not reasonable. My guess is that it is doing well, but could be doing better. And that they think if they invest that money, it WILL do better. This is why businesses invest money. They don't do it because the pier isn't themed well enough, or the prizes on the midway aren't pretty enough.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But we don't know, because we don't have the information at our fingertips.<< And this has been the problem all along, hasn't it? Information. I am truly sorry I did not think to have a stenographer and notary public along when I attended all those seminars and meetings, starting in the late 90s. But I do have a very clear recollection of what was said. I am also sorry that my quoting from business journals and company brochures is still considered some sort of guess as to what the Comapny expected from DCA. Historical evidence is always subject to interpretation. But it shouldn't be dismissed. I am also sorry if anyone here feels I am claiming that my opinion is fact. What I have tried to make clear is that my opinion is bolstered by facts. What I will not apologize for are the facts themselves.
Originally Posted By jonvn "I am also sorry that my quoting from business journals and company brochures " Your quote from the one company brochure about the Disney decade was from 10 years prior to the opening of the park, had nothing to do with the park, and was completely inappropriate. Your quoting of business journals that do not discuss this with Disney execs are not factual. They are speculative and do not create factual information from which you can derive any sort of facts from. There is a difference between what is a fact, and what is not. Barry Braverman said 7 million in an interview. That is a fact. What you quoted (assuming you quoted in context) from that brochure from 1990 was factual. The rest are not. Again, you need to learn what the difference is.
Originally Posted By DlandDug Everyone here knows the difference between what is a fact and what is not. I will leave this with a salient quote from Bob Iger: "We're still working to assure the second gate is successful. In the spirit of candor, we have been challenged." (March 10, 2006)
Originally Posted By jonvn "Everyone here knows the difference between what is a fact and what is not. " Apparently not. Yes, Iger said that. That means it's been a challenge for them. That means it's probably not been as well received as they hoped. No one is disputing that. What is being disputed are your extreme characterizations that are simply not borne out by your "facts," or more accurately, your lack of facts. You make claims about how the place has never met any of its goals, you make claims about how the place is a failure, you make claims about attendance, you make claims about public reaction, and yet all you have is a quote from Braverman about 7 million people, of which we don't know the full context. Give it a rest already. You just don't know the things you pretend to. Stop trying to force an issue that you just can't possibly know much about.
Originally Posted By DlandDug There's nothing extreme in saying that DCA is a failure. Especially when that opinion is supported with facts and anecdotal evidence. What is extreme is trying to dismiss an entire line of reasoning without so much as a by-your-leave.
Originally Posted By jonvn "There's nothing extreme in saying that DCA is a failure." Of course there is. Saying it is a failure means the place shuts its doors and closes up. That is what a failure would be. Since it's not doing that, but instead at worst not living up to expectations, your description is extreme and inappropriate. "What is extreme is trying to dismiss an entire line of reasoning " When you present acceptable information regarding your entire line of reasoning, I'll not dismiss it. You simply have next to nothing here, and it's been that way with folks who wanted to demonize the place since day one.
