Height requirements...borderline cases

The PointGuru said:
You may be right that the answer to all of those questions is purely someone's opinion. I don't think that you need a scientific survey to find out that the answer to all of those questions is, Yes. I provided discussion topics on ideas how the park could improve itself and answer those questions better. Are some of my ideas "outside the box"? Sure. Are some a little far fetched? Maybe. Is there at least a little bit if plausibility in every single one of them? Absolutely.

I believe this is saying, yes my ideas are slightly unrealistic but that's just me.

Please keep this going, I'll grab popcorn :)

noggin said:
Perhaps, PointGuru, you don't understand what the word "discussion" means? ... you seem so fond of, you pout, you become petulant. It's not attractive, nor does it do much to further your arguments.

Not even one time have I ended my post with: " Well if you don't like the park, you don't have to come"? Or, "He's just a troll, stop feeding him". Or, etc... Or some variation of such.

I have given examples from other industries and other parks or even things that the park does already. The more likely reason why so many people are becoming angry because (for lack of a better term) I am hitting too close to home. In other words, My thoughts and opinions are too logical and well thought out that they cannot be disputed. I spread the truth. Through some unidentified loyalties or unintended emotional attachments to the park people think I am trying to offend them personally when I point out how poorly management performs in certain aspects of the park.

The only person I have seen post on this site that could be even remotely offended by anything I have said is Tony. By Tony's lack of response to a single posting of mine I can assume that he is smart enough to understand that I am just one yahoo with a computer and probably too much time on my hands. I would hope he is smarter than Gatekeeper2013 and can actually understand what I am saying and uses the information for the betterment of the park in the future; but, if he doesn't, who cares? This is only the internet.

You come across as an arrogant know-it-all who creates a lot of noise around here. The noise is most unpleasant.

I would imagine that the heights are over-set to allow for variances with shoe soles and even for the shoe stuffers.

I agree that CP has gotten away from shared family rides. So glad our youngest is tall enough to ride most rides now, still not tall enough for Raptor and Mantis. But I do miss the diversionary type of family rides, like Pirate Ride and Earthquake. I feel that those rides give a person a well-rounded experience at an amusement park. Not happy that STR turned out to be a higher height requirement when it's original was a family ride.

Our solution was that before our kids were tall enough to ride something decent, we just didn't go. It's not worth the money standing around watching the kiddie rides. The first we went with our youngest, he was only tall enough for Disaster Transport and Iron Dragon. Now Disaster Transport is gone for families with younger children. Not complaining about the new coaster but if they would just think of a real family ride, there's only so many times you can ride Cadillac Cars together. Again, just not worth the money.

When the kids were younger, we went to Idlewild near Pittsburgh for an amusement park experience because of the amount of rides and things there you're all able to do together. It was cheaper, too, although it was a farther drive and we had to stay overnight.

We're hoping to have a great year at Cedar Point, first year getting passes, too.

3snoH un=l said:
But I do miss the diversionary type of family rides, like Pirate Ride and Earthquake. I feel that those rides give a person a well-rounded experience at an amusement park.

Yep.

Gives a nice break from the coasters as well.

The PointGuru said:
I always had more faith in fairness and open minded people like Jeff and Walt who encouraged free speech with this forum.

We encourage no such thing. We encourage intelligent, non-combative, non-know-it-all, non-douchey, non-noise speech, and you clearly don't know the difference.

I hope this thread never gets deleted so parents who come here looking for answers about height requirements know that there are rules ride ops have to follow. Yeah, they're going to have to go through at least 4 pages of ThePointGuru's nonsense and us feeding into it, but maybe they'll understand after reading the main ideas. Although, it would be nice if those who do the measuring in Park Op would explain to the family that their child may get measured at the entrance of lines for safety reasons.

Second, probably about 20% of ride ops are teenagers. You must be 18 to work in ride operations, and by the time a first year 18 year old makes it to leadership, they're no longer a teenager. The Team Leader and Assistant Team Leader are there to also make sure such rules are enforced, and such people wouldn't be appointed to leadership if they weren't trustworthy by management. So please get that straight. I'm not trying to make it seem like some ride ops have an excuse to be douchey, considering I had a bad encounter with a rude one at Gatekeeper last weekend, but for once as a guest/parent/human being, stop placing the blame on the employees and take responsibility for your actions, poor judgement, and the danger you're putting your child in before questioning rules and regulations that must be followed (holy run-on sentence).

Well...there you go again, as Reagan used to say.

Have you chosen to engage in any sort of discussion here? Nope. You're the same petulant, pouting PointGuru you've been all along.

Your "thoughts and opinions" are just darn "logical and well thought out that they cannot be disputed"? Really? Seems to me quite a few people have done a very good job disputing various of your claims and notions.

Perhaps the problem isn't that your "thoughts and opinions are too logical and well thought out...they cannot be disputed." Maybe the thoughts and opinions of the rest of us are too logical and well thought out for you to dispute.

The PointGuru said:
I would hope he is smarter than Gatekeeper2013...

Why thank you for saying something nice about somebody (Tony)

The PointGuru said:
I certainly have never called anyone names (or at least directed at a particular poster).

Although, you did do some thing you said you don't do. I know that you will argue "This isn't calling names" but it is still directing a possibly insulting comment at another user, but according to what you said, you don't do that. I am rather confused.

Gatekeeper - he's been wrong on every other subject he professes to be an expert in. Why would that change now?

Because logic :)

I will be the mature one and stop arguing now.

PointGuru's ideas are out there and I think he has the best interest of guests when he posts his ideas. Feasible or not, at least he doesn't attack people personally. Kudos to him for that. Regarding the forum subject, I've always been curious about maximum heights. How well do they patrol people who are too tall? I'm wondering if huge tall NBA, NFL players are excluded from riding or if they get a pass???

I wouldn't think being a professional athlete excludes that person from height restrictions or things like fastening the seat belt. Your occupation doesn't change the dynamics of the ride.

Unless you're Sandor. Then it does.

Let me get this straight.

A parole officer who has encouraged people to "not include criminal history if you don't think you should" on a job application?

^

That is 100% correct. It's called Re-entry and it is the official position of Ohio and virtually every other state. Welcome to the world we live in. That is fact, not my opinion.