Originally Posted By DVC_dad ^^^ --- oh but for the record, I am very much against the Pooh Playground...just so you know.
Originally Posted By LadyandtheTramp WRT Post #40. You lost me on this one. Why should you expect ANYTHING for your freeloading 2 year old? And why should Disney supply it? Sorry, but I think you're getting everything to which you're entitled with the pasta. Sword? Heck, everyone else has to pay to get one, why should one be given to the 2 year old. Of course, I personally believe 2 year olds (and less) should NOT be admitted free into the parks. They take up space, lengthen certain lines, and need to be coddled in stollers that take up more space than any 5 people combined.
Originally Posted By LadyandtheTramp ^^^Logic 101 - if you can't provide coherent, intelligent counterarguments to a position, attack the integrity or ridicule the appearance of the presentor. Distrate the audience from the content of the position and try to rely instead on emotion.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip ^^^ I was doing nothing of the sort. I was just pointing out the very basic truth that anyone who can't stand being around 2-year-olds would be better off in Las Vegas than at WDW. (Besides which you were unbelievably snotty to a very nice man.)
Originally Posted By LadyandtheTramp My grandson is 2 years old, and while I enjoy being around him (though 1000 miles away makes it infrequent), I still don't think he ought to be given free food or gifts solely because of his age. And we've told his parents that if they want to go to WDW with him it'll be sans stroller.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By DVC_dad <<< Why should you expect ANYTHING for your freeloading 2 year old? >>> I'm sure you were a wonderful parent and an even better grandparent. Thanks for teaching me a lesson. Maybe if I were as intelligent as you are and as logical of a thinker as you are, I could express my opinion here without having my kids insulted. You certainly have a fitting nic name, well half of it. <<< Brats from hell! >>> I would love to be your child. Your mother must have coined this phrase.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN How would you know if I even had a mother? Happy 50th DISNEYLAND. Sorry big bad WDW stole your celebration.
Originally Posted By DVC_dad That gets the Logic 101 responses out of the way, now on to the logical reply... The reservation rep told me on the phone that kids under 2 eat free. Well you could say, "The noodles are free and he can eat them." In this same restaurant, less than one year prior, my kids under two ate free from the same kids meal that over age 2 to age 9 ordered from. Why would I expect this to change. Furthermore, every other restaurant that we visited, gave free food from the kids menu on this trip. And THAT is why I would expect, "...ANYTHING for (my) freeloading 2 year old? And why should Disney supply it?" <--- oops someone used a fragment, but then the highly intelligent do that too sometimes. <<< Personally, I would not take a child there until he/she was able to pay his/her own admission. >>> How can I pay admission? They don't charge admission for kids two and under.
Originally Posted By TDLFAN >>How can I pay admission? They don't charge admission for kids two and under two<< Yet...
Originally Posted By wahooskipper To the poster who said Disney was designed so that families can play TOGETHER I point out this: I don't know too many kids under 5 who could ride Space Mountain, Thunder Mountain, Splash Mountain, Stitch Encounter, the Rocketships, need I go on?
Originally Posted By TDLFAN You are correct but Walt Disney intended Disneyland for parents to enjoy themselves with children, together. Of course he himself blew it when he opened Matterhorn..
Originally Posted By wahooskipper I don't think he intended for every single attraction to cross generational interests. The case could be made that Haunted Mansion and Pirates, among others, are not appropriate for kids under 5. But, I think the idea of small play areas around the park make for a more family-friendly atmosphere. I was thinking about this when I visited Cedar Point a couple of years ago. Cedar Point has two distinct areas for the 6 and under crowd. In the meantime the park is over 300 acres. So, if I have a family of various ages/heights and the big kids all want to go on one of the many rollercoasters I have to sit with the non-rider and either watch the ride or wander around through a store. If there were a little play area stragetically place between a couple of rollercoasters my little one could an hour or so of fun while the big kids hit the coasters. I don't have to go far away and everyone knows where we are. I think the Pooh Playground is more in keeping with Walt's vision of everyone enjoying themselves than some would admit to. Is it sexy? No. But it doesn't have to be to serve the purpose and, as has been mentioned, it seems to be holding it's own with a good number of kids and their parents.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 problem is there is already a playground in MK - Tom Sawyers Island and all of Toon Town...there are not 2 - 3 playgrounds in any other park,nor should there be..IMHO !<< There is already a roller coaster in Frontierland and Tomorrowland, why would Disney ever think of building another one? Come on, this anti Pooh playground argument is weak, we have an option a) an empty plot of land or b) a playground for little kids to blow off some steam. I would take option B over A anyday of the week. I know alot of this bitterness towards a playground comes from the fact that people are upset that Disney got rid of the subs and didnt build a super roller coaster or another E ticket at that site. But that is not going to happen because Disney is a business above all else, they are going to make decisions that ultimately make them money in the long run, I like to call it +EV (Estimated Value), a playground is +EV while a roller coaster or E Ticket is -EV when you look at the stafing costs, maintenance, etc. Disney is riding high right now, with good attendance, high hotel occupency rates, etc. There is no need to deliver a E ticket to its top drawing park. It is already a draw. On the other hand, DAK, EPCOT and MGM are all hurting to some extent, which is why they are getting some love right now in regards to attractions. Eventually, MK may get another Major E Ticket, but until then expect only small attractions like Philarmagic or Pooh Playground as fillers. Because essentially that is all the playground is, a filler. I have no problem with fillers, they entertain my son, and keeps him happy which in the long run keeps me happy. If you don't like Poo, don't step in it, go around it and experience an attraction you do like.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <I may need to pull out my economics textbooks from college, but I can't recall capitalism and selling goods at a loss so the competition goes out of business going together.< it's called predatory practices -- and is not in a capitalism model
Originally Posted By vbdad55 <<<<and I hate to tell you that the 2 - 4 year old age demographic does not pay the bills either>>> I'm not too sure about this one vbdad. If my 2 to 4 year olds become unhappy at WDW we certainly would not go. < while I hear what you're saying, they do not pay the bills...many kids become disenchanted with WDW at a certain age also...so parents leave them at home..WDW has survived.... I am not saying there should ne nothing for them, but they are not the controlling interest either
