Originally Posted By DlandDug Going back to an earlier question: >>I always wonder about Pressler and Harriss coming back for big events like this. It's no secret that prior top executives are invited back for high profile events and big grand openings... Pressler and Harriss are never there, and never mentioned.<< I should have recalled that Barry Braverman was given a cordial reception as he attended Marty Sklar's window ceremony on Main Street. Granted, the event took place before Disneyland opened to paying guests for the day. Here's the LP article. Braverman's picture is on page 6: <a href="http://www.laughingplace.com/Lotion-View-926.asp" target="_blank">http://www.laughingplace.com/L...-926.asp</a>
Originally Posted By DlandDug (Post #79 was in response to the entirety of Post #78. Apparently the idea of being succinct is confusing...)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Still doesn't make sense. There are no wild assumptions on my part in #78. I see your passive-aggressiveness is still in tact though.
Originally Posted By berol How come youse two have this same circular conversation 2 or 3 times a year? It mystifies me, so don't answer. It'll ruin the magic!
Originally Posted By Manfried It should be noted that Marty Sklar was a big backer of the original DCA design.
Originally Posted By crapshoot <<It should be noted that Marty Sklar was a big backer of the original DCA design.>> Marty stood at the microphone at the WDI DCA opening event and told everyone that the outside visual intrusions were a welcoming feature of DCA. Of course, he also said that the Tower of Terror was the finest looking building in Orange County when it opened.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt That's pretty accurate considering how truly bad and unremarkable Orange County architecture is.
Originally Posted By tashajilek So does everybody agree that DCA "NOW" with all the new changes is not a failure anymore? thats all that really does matter.
Originally Posted By danyoung I think that remains to be seen. I think it has much more of a fighting chance than it had on its opening day. The type of theming and detail that they're doing now is much more in line with what we've come to expect from a Disney park. I think the new Carsland is gonna be a huge hit, and I think that will be enough to drive DCA's attendance sky high for the next few months.
Originally Posted By tashajilek ^^^ I think so too. It will never been Disneyland, but what park is? Im glad they didnt give up on DCA, it really is turning into a good park.
Originally Posted By oc_dean Wow ... interesting conversation here First of all .... I couldn't stomach seeing Paul Pressler, Barry Braverman, Cynthia Harris .. or any other past executive who's hands were heavily involved with creating what was delivered on Feb 8,'01. They'd get a lot of boos and hisses. So their best plan is to stay away .. and not show their faces for years to come .. if not, ever. Now to the 'other' conversation going on here ................. I've been a poster here since 2000. There have been a lot of posters who've posted a lot of credible information to reveal so many truths about DCA 1.0. From Galaxie500, to Westsider, to Darkbeer, DL&Dug, Crapshoot, Disneywatcher, the list goes on. And no matter how many times the posters who are left .. who present these facts ... will end up posting them again .. and again for years to come. Because we seem to have some posters .. that no matter how many times DL&Dug (or Darkbeer in the past) have reprinted facts ... some continue to have "amnesia"? Or should I call it selective memories?? ;-) .... And DCA 1.0 is this aurora of myths that some persistently want to believe .. even if DL&Dug and Crapshoot have to keep repeating the same info that's been shown in the last 10 years ... for the next 10 years. DCA 1.0 is like a false religion. Some defend it in a way .... that keeps posters like DL&Dug consistently have to reiterate the same truths that were presented a year ago ... or in 2007 .. or in 2004 .. or in 2002 .. or 2000.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>There are no wild assumptions on my part in #78.<< Noted. >>I see your passive-aggressiveness is still in tact though.<< No passive-aggression, in or out of "tact." Just a simple reiteration of my well supported opinion.
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^^ But it seems you'll be reiterating for years to come ... to the same posters! SELECTIVE MEMORIES!
Originally Posted By DlandDug Ah. Just saw the post from ocd. (ocd! Hah!) I was never caught up in the DCA Thread Wars of 2001-2003 or so. And I've never fallen into the "DCA Sucks!" crowd. But I do have a very well considered opinion of the reasons DCA failed so spectacularly. And yes, it gets tiresome to me (as I am sure to others) when it comes up again and again. But what is even more tiresome is finding a fairly well presented argument reduced to (and dismissed at) the level of "DCA Sucks!"
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>They'd get a lot of boos and hisses.<< Anyone really think people would actually boo Cynthia Harriss? Paul Pressler?
Originally Posted By oc_dean It's hard to believe I've been with LP for so long ;-) ......... But I remember! I recall these same conversations to the same posters for the last 11 years! Some don't go back all the way to 2000 ... but close enough. When are some going to LISTEN to the facts of DCA 1.0 ... and stop defending a bunch of untruths/myths???? It's unreal! It's unbelievable!
Originally Posted By danyoung >When are some going to LISTEN to the facts of DCA 1.0 ... and stop defending a bunch of untruths/myths????< I'm not sure I see anyone definding untruths and myths, at least not in this thread. The question is of a semantic nature, but it's still a valid point of dispute - did DCA fail, or did it do some good while not nearly as much good as Disney thought it would? I don't see that it's possible to say that the place was a total failure. Of course it under-performed. Of course it needed change, and quickly. Of course it was over-hyped and over-promoted, and the reality fell incredibly short of that. But was it a failure? Some people think it was, and provide anecdotal evidence of that. Some people think it didn't, and provide anecdotal evidence to support that theory. In the end, we were all hoodwinked by the dream of a cool new park. And we're all benefitting from the bazillions of bucks now being spent to bring DCA up to the level it should have been in the first place. Just because I don't see DCA as a complete and utter failure doesn't mean I'm buying into any myths and untruths. But it was a lame park from the beginning, and hopefully soon it won't be.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 >>There are no wild assumptions on my part in #78.<< <Noted.> Ah, Dug's "noted." The ultimate passive-aggressive tactic - it can mean just about anything. "Noted," as in "I re-read that thread and I see that you are actually correct," or "noted" as in "yeah, right, whatever?" This is more transparent than you think it is. >>I see your passive-aggressiveness is still in tact though.<< <No passive-aggression, in or out of "tact." Just a simple reiteration of my well supported opinion.> Accusing others of "wild assumptions" when none are present does not constitue a "well supported opinion." Face it - there's just as much evidence to support the idea that DCA did not fail full stop - indeed, I would say far more - than the simplistic idea that it did. Life just isn't like that.
Originally Posted By DlandDug And then, of course, there's the tactic of simply leaving the whole topic at hand and turning it into a discussion of those we disagree with. If I find myself falling down that rabbit hole, I usually prefer to say "noted" and move on.
