Can we stay at one resort and relax at another?

[Katieanndy]

My husband and I are planning a return trip to WDW after our honeymoon 3 years ago. On our honeymoon we stayed at a moderate resort but are not in the same position to put out the extra funds this time. We thoroughly enjoyed the relaxing environment of the POR resort last time and would like to visit it and reminice.
Does anyone know if it is possible to stay at a value resort, but relax by the pool of another nicer resort?
When we were thinking about it we thought that it might just be as easy as getting on a bus back to another resort and then staying by the pool with their towels and maybe even eating at their resturant. Anyone tried it?

- Katie

 

[DznyGrlSD]

I have no problem with people resort hopping, shopping, dining & drinking at other resorts but taking advantage of another resort's amenities (relaxing by the pool for example) isn't right.

 

[sbkline]

Yep, I believe that rules are there for a reason. After becoming an adult and working in law enforcement I finally understood this and learned how to function in life without seeking out the gray area. Do I think an empty pool should be kept off limits to guests not staying at that resort? No if there's no rule against it. Yes, if the rule states it should be. The problem with allowing guests to make judgement calls is that even tho 90% of the time it won't hurt anything there's still the 10% of the time that it would or could create a problem. Not all guests have good judgement. If a rule is made it should be adhered to and enforced with consequences. That's all there is to it. Gray area creates opportunity for problems. Sticking with the black and white everything remains clear, unchanging, and easily understood. Does that make sense? I'm not trying to be mean or pick on anyone. It's like that with any rule anywhere.

I get what you're saying, but your black and white approach creates just as many opportunities for problems. Do I believe that judgement calls need to be used in the application of rules? Absolutely. Otherwise, we're just a society of mindless machines who aren't capable of procesessing the facts of the situation and determining what needs to be done. Instead, we're just mindless drones adhering to the letter of the law. Let me give an example. My father was a Methodist Pastor. In the Methodist system (at least back then...I think it may have changed a little in more recent years), you would have the main church, then there would be one, sometimes two little country churches. Dad would have to preach at each church on Sunday mornings. And Methodist pastors get moved around alot, so we lived in several towns growing up, as Dad would be re-assigned to a new church. Anyway, we would all go to church at the primary church in the actual town where we lived. Then, after that, it would be time to head out into the country for him to preach the service there. And, in some of the places we lived, he would even have a third church to drive to after being done with the second one, and preach the sermon there. Obviously, when we were little, my brother and I had to go along to every service. But there came a time, I'd say when I was about 7 or 8 and my brother was around 10 or 11, that my parents decided that it was time to ween us away from having to be drug to all three services and allow us to be in the house alone after the first service, until they got home. So at first, the rule was that we had to stay IN the house and we could not go outside. Period. Then, eventually, we were told that we could go outside, but we could not leave the yard, and so on. Anyway, the point of this long story is that this was a rule. Do not leave the house until we get home. And, as I said, rules exist for a reason, rather than being ends unto themselves that must be followed in a black and white fashion. So, my question to you is, what if the house caught on fire? What if someone broke in? Do we follow the letter of the law and perish in the fire since, as you seem to believe, rules are black and white and there is no room for a gray area and it's too dangerous to allow people to "pick and choose" when a rule is important enough to follow? Or do us kids make a judgment call and interpret the situation as to what needs to be done, and "break the rules" and leave the house and go to safety? See, the rule "do not leave the house" exists for a reason. The reason being, our safety. It's not an arbitrary rule that exists for no reason that must be followed on its own merit. Our safety is the goal and the rule is the means to achieve that goal. But in those instances where the goal must be met by doing opposite the rule, then the rule must fall by the wayside. Now granted, we're talking about fleeing a burning house vs swimming in a pool at a resort. But my point is that, as human beings with the ability to reason and make intelligent choices, there is most certainly the need to weigh a rule against other circumstances to determine if the rule is valid in this case. And my point, in the case of pool hopping is that the rule exists to ensure that you, as a paying guest of that resort, don't get bumped out of your pool by a bunch of people who aren't paying to stay there. So, if you're in the pool with only one other family, and that family happens not to be staying there, the rule doesn't need to "kick in" in this case because that one family isn't any threat to anyone else's ability to use the pool. Sure, you can use the hypothetical analogy of "but what if 100 people did the same thing?" Well, worry about that when it happens. If/when that does happen, then the rule would kick in and they would be dealt with at that time.

But I really have a philosophical problem with the "black and white" minded people who don't think we should ever teach kids that we can and should use our judgement as to when the rules apply and when they don't. Because when you make statements like that, it makes me wonder what you would do if your child slit his wrists and you were trying to get him to the ER before he bleeds to death. Would you go as fast as you can go and blow through the redlights to get him to the ER? Or would you say "sorry honey, the law is the law, and rules are there for a reason and I can't pick and choose which ones to follow?" I may be misunderstanding your philosophy on it, but as I understand it right now, I tend to label that as a "Barney Fife approach" to the rules. Ol' Barney wasn't able to apply the rules with any common sense. All he saw was the black and white letter of the law and nothing else mattered.

And I apologize if I was overly harsh in my reply to you. I'm sure you're a good person who I could get along with and I'm glad you chose not to be offended. I just have a problem with the "black and white" approach to rules that you seem to espouse. I was once very "black and white" myself, but came to learn that life isn't that simple. There are circumstances that come up which make it more complicated than simply "this is the rule and that's all there is to it." Now again, with something so trivial as swimming in a pool at the resort, I guess it would be alot easier to be black and white because, at the end of the day, no one's life is in danger if they are forced to swim at their Pop Century pool as opposed to the Wilderness Lodge Pool. But I'm just saying that, when applying rules, we need to evaluate all the circumstances to come up with the "reasonable" way to proceed. Is it reasonable to impose the speed limit on a carload of kids out joyriding? I suppose so. Is it reasonable to impose that same speed limit on a man trying to rush his pregnant wife to the hospital while she's in heavy labor? I don't think so.

I understand what you're saying about not everyone uses good judgement and therefore, it's dangerous for people to take it upon themselves to pick and choose when a rule is important and when it isn't. But the point of view that I'm coming from is that the people who write the rules cannot possibly foresee and take into account every possible scenario. So it becomes imperative for people to be able to use the good sense that the good Lord gave them, to analyze the situation at hand and come to a conclusion as to what is the best course of action, rather than being a mindless robot to a rule manual.

 

[sbkline]

And does Leave it to Beaver come on anymore? I can only imagine what my boys would think. They roll their eyes and sigh whenever I bring old musical dvds home these days. I could ruin their liiiiives or show 'em what real tv is about with that show. It's a win-win for me, huh? LOL!

I think TV Land still shows it...at least sometimes. I know every now and then I'll see a mini-marathon of it on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon.

 

[kimmychad]

I do admit, I think the Pool Hopping rule is ridiculous for those staying on property.:lookaroun:lol:

if all the resorts were the same price and had the same types of pools I wouldn't see a problem either. since we usually stay at a value we don't expect the same amenities as other resorts such as a sit down restaurant the moderates and deluxes have, so we don't expect to use their pool either.

 

[mickey2008.1]

WOW! This is the most controversial thread i have seen. It is a good cat fight. But, people do pay alot for the deluxe resorts, and moderates, to have their place of privacy/relaxation, hence pool area. I understand there should be no pool hopping intentionaly. As it has been said before in this thread, it would also be a waste of time to get to these resorts, and thats what the waterparks are for. You get what you pay for. We wouldnt do it, but if you do, great job for ripping off the system as you probably do in your day to day life.

 

[slappy magoo]

But I really have a philosophical problem with the "black and white" minded people who don't think we should ever teach kids that we can and should use our judgement as to when the rules apply and when they don't. Because when you make statements like that, it makes me wonder what you would do if your child slit his wrists and you were trying to get him to the ER before he bleeds to death. Would you go as fast as you can go and blow through the redlights to get him to the ER? Or would you say "sorry honey, the law is the law, and rules are there for a reason and I can't pick and choose which ones to follow?" I may be misunderstanding your philosophy on it, but as I understand it right now, I tend to label that as a "Barney Fife approach" to the rules. Ol' Barney wasn't able to apply the rules with any common sense. All he saw was the black and white letter of the law and nothing else mattered.

Dude, I'm sorry, but that's totally...TOTALLY apples and oranges when compared to "dare I or dasn't I pool hop?" One is a matter of life or death. One is a trip to the hospital. Bad-dum bump. Tip your wait staff and all that.

But seriously, ladies and germs, it's ridiculous to chastise someone for following the rules during a normal situation, and then using the false equivalency of an emergency to say "See? Your way isn't the only way."

BTW, I once asked a cop about the "What if someone was rushing to the hospital when you pull them over" scenario. His response was "I'd escort them to the hospital, get the emergency workers to hand the situation...and then write the driver a ticket. Because those are the rules."

I will say this, if there were a true emergency situation - say, someone who is staying at Pop goes to dinner at Boma, and actually get set on fire, I'd have no problem allowing that person to jump into the pool to stop the flames from engulfing him or her. EVEN IF I WERE STAYING AT AKL.

The exception would also apply to someone being attacked by an angry animal or a swarm of bees/wasps/hornets, and in any other resort with a nicer pool than a Value resort.

You're welcome.

Off topic, but I've never seen it addressed (which means that it could have been addressed but I missed it, I do have a life outside of the itnernets, strange as tho it may seem): What about GYM hopping? Most, if not all, of the Deluxe resorts have a gym. I believe Coronado does as well. Should someone staying at a resort that does not have a gym be allowed to use the facilities at one that does? Some resorts allow it, like the aformentioned Poly/GF connection. But should someone at POP be allowed to use the gym at Wilderness Lodge? Sure, the gyms are locked and you need a resort key to get in (like the pool at Y&BC does) but if you COULD sneak your way in, SHOULD you? What if the gym were packed (unlikely perhaps), and your entry prevents an actual guest at that resort from working out as he/she wants to. Surely if pool hopping is OK, THAT'S OK, too, isn't it? They're oth amenities, and NOBODY REALLY goes to a resort for the amenities, do they?

 

[sbkline]

Dude, I'm sorry, but that's totally...TOTALLY apples and oranges when compared to "dare I or dasn't I pool hop?" One is a matter of life or death. One is a trip to the hospital. Bad-dum bump. Tip your wait staff and all that.

But seriously, ladies and germs, it's ridiculous to chastise someone for following the rules during a normal situation, and then using the false equivalency of an emergency to say "See? Your way isn't the only way."

I already acknowledged that they are two totally seperate things, but I was arguing against her general "black and white" interpretation of rules, which is beyond the topic at hand of pool hopping. So let's think of other issues which aren't life or death. Here's one that just happened last week. My wife and I were on our way home, and we were coming up to the railroad crossing and the bars were down. The law says you can't go around the bars. But the problem is, there is a factory right there and there was a train in total dead stop mode at the factory, presumably to unload a delivery. The train was close enough that it triggered the sensors to put the bars down. After seeing the bars down and very slowly approaching to see if there was, indeed a train, and then seeing that it was sitting idle, I chose to go through the gates, to which my wife initially told me "that's against the law". I responded that the law is there to prevent you from getting killed by an oncoming train, so the law, therefore, is moot in this case since the train is totally stopped and the bars are only down because the train is stopped close enough so as to trigger the sensors. See, in this case, I used some judgement to determine that the law, in this case, doesn't apply and need not be followed. I'm not gonna sit at that crossing for hours and wait for the train to leave, and I'm not gonna turn around and find another route home. When seeing the train standing idle, the reasonable, common sense thing to do is to go through the bars.

Have you ever sat at the same red light for 5 minutes before finally concluding that the thing is obviously out of order, looking both ways and going on through? Even though that violates the letter of the law against "running a red light", doesn't that judgement call make alot more sense than sitting at a red light all day waiting for it to start working again? Again, the purpose of my analogies was not to equate pool hopping with rushing a person to the ER. It was to demonstrate that the black and white letter of the law approach just doesn't work, and that there is nothing wrong with using a little judgement and common sense at times to determine whether bending or breaking a rule is in order. No analogy is perfect and anyone, if they are determined to, can pick an analogy apart, rather than getting the point that was intended. While I'm perfectly aware that the "need" to pool hop is not even close to being on the same plane with rushing someone to the ER, or even going through a broken redlight, the purpose of those examples, again, was to demonstrate to the "black and white" minded people that no, it's not all black and white, as much as we would like for it to be.

So again, is there any life or death reason to justify breaking the rules against pool hopping? No, of course not. But SweatPea was not only arguing specifically against pool hopping, but she was also taking a general stance beyond that that "rules are rules" and it's not up to us to pick and choose when to follow them. I was replying of some examples of why that approach doesn't work.

I have never pool hopped and never intend to do so. It's too much of a hassle and, in this case, I see no reason to break the rules. But my long winded diatribe was intended as my reaction to those who view everything in black and white, and also, my attitude towards those who do break the rules against pool hopping. I'm not too concerned about it as long as they aren't actually infringing on the ability of the actual guests to use the pool. I'm not concerned about the letter of the law in regards to pool hopping (at least in the way I view the offenders, even though I will comply with the rules), I'm more concerned about the spirit of the law. And, in my opinion, that's really what laws and rules are all about.

Oh, and by the way, I am not chastizing anyone for following the rules. If she wants to follow the rule against pool hopping, that's fine with me. I'll follow it, too. I'm simply disagreeing with those parts of her posts where she states her belief that rules should never be broken for any reason...or at least my perception that this is what she is saying.

BTW, I once asked a cop about the "What if someone was rushing to the hospital when you pull them over" scenario. His response was "I'd escort them to the hospital, get the emergency workers to hand the situation...and then write the driver a ticket. Because those are the rules."

Then that cop is a total, complete jackass. And that's me being black and white.

 

[SMRT-1Michael]

As a DVC member, we get to pool hop to any DVC resort so it really isnt a problem for me.

 

[sweetpee_1993]

Sbkline, I totally get you. Let me say that first. I think we are very alike in that simple-minded people who don't think for themselves are generally sorta irritating. I feel ya there. Truly. And I assure you, what you describe as a simple "black and white" person is something I certainly am not. I've always chosen the most difficult paths in life by avoiding black or white. It's my special knack, I guess. When it comes to something like "pool hopping" or other such non-life-threatening or trivial things where there's no imminent danger or real necessity for me to behave or do something outside of what has been clearly specified as the correct way to do something then I just don't. Hence, if one of my kids was hurt I would speed. If I was written a ticket for it then that's fine. And when I was in very active labor with my 2nd baby and had a 4 hour drive to the hospital you better believe the hubby had our little car flying. However, when it comes to hotel amenities or things of that nature that I want for myself or my family, if I want something bad enough then I do what I need to the right way to get what it is that I want because there's no reason for me to break a rule other than at that moment I-want-what-I-want-when-I-want-it.

An analogy I could use to illustrate my point in the extreme sense as with yours with the "stay in the house rule" would be speeding. If I'm driving down the highway late at night and there's no other cars on the road, would it be just ducky for me to drive my car as fast as I want to? ((Which for me is extremely fast considering when I learned to drive I learned to race and I wasn't one to lose...)) So now I'm zipping along down the highway running in excess of 140 mph, would it be wrong for a police officer to cite me for breaking the speed limit or haul my hiney to jail for reckless operation? Nobody else was there. I wasn't bothering anyone. I wasn't impeding other drivers' safety at the time. Why should I be required to follow the speed limit? I'd imagine it's because if every driver decided that late at night when there was barely any other cars on the highway it was okay to open up Ol' Bessie and see what she can do then there would be a problem. So I choose to behave and not get crazy speeding even when it would be tremendous fun for me or accept the consequences of my lead foot getting the better of me. Do I speed? Yes. Do I expect that to be okay (with the exception of an emergency situation)? No. In the end, I wouldn't think less of the police officers who are doing their job by giving me a ticket and I wouldn't think less of my fellow motorists if they chose not to speed. And if I really wanted to see how fast I could make my car go (I got a new one last week...I really have to fight this temptation right now..:lol I know that I can go to facilities equipped for that. It just has to become something I want bad enough to shell out the bucks to do. Buuut, if one of the kids was hurt and needed to go to the hospital in a hurry and it was a situation that couldn't wait for the ambulance to get here you better believe I'd have 'em in the car bleedin' or pukin' on the new leather racing down the road to the hospital. :animwink:

Again, I'm not saying I agree with Disney completely forbidding pool hopping. I imagine they could set pool hopping "seasons" where during slower periods or during cooler months it could be an okay thing. I've actually given thought to the not-as-obvious reasons why they would say it's a no-no aside from the possibility of overcrowding. Keeping in mind that most decisions made by a business are financially driven or influenced, if pool hopping and/or other deluxe amenities were available to any resort guest who happens along why would people spend 4 or more times the amount of a value resort to stay in a deluxe? The rooms are bigger and decorated up different but the amenities are something Disney really pushes through their resort categorizing. The anti-pool-hopping rule may be more of a business decision to try to keep the more sought after pools as an exclusive perk so they can offer that as part of the "bait" to lure folks into spending what it takes to obtain them. Again, not saying that I 100% agree 100% of the time just because Disney said so thus it must be the only way. ((See??? I'm not a simple little black-n-white girl..I prefer pink! )) I'm just saying that there's some logic in what they're doing from a business stand point. And as I explained before, unless there's some really, really pressing reason for me to go against what the guidelines or rules are I just don't see going out of my way to do it.

Yep, I'm still a "rules is rules" gal with common sense applied. ((I'm antagonistic, too! :lol) Unless doing what I'm supposed to will cause harm to someone somehow or have some very pressing emergency-ish related reason, yep, I'm behaving. I don't carry a blinking sign around announcing that eeeeveryone should follow me because I know the right way. I don't profess to be perfect, have all the answers, or be free of all imperfections or infractions. I don't seek out wrongdoers on a regular basis so I can point out their transgressions (that part early in this thread really was a joke) nor do I seek authority-figures so I can point out how good I've been. I can accept the concept that rules, laws, guidelines, etc. in general (not just at WDW) are put in place for reasons I'm not always going to be aware of because I'm not the expert on everything in life.

I think my way of viewing this stuff is strongly rooted in the years I worked in law enforcement communications. Questioning stuff could get people killed. I know it's another extreme example for "rules is rules" but I lived by the SOPs long before I understood them because I had to. Later down the road when I had girls working for me that questioned my instruction it would floor me. Case in point (so I don't come off as a total heifer), 5:00 a.m. one morning I was delegating the last of my shifts' duties before shift change. Our newest shift member was a young girl who had only been working with us for a week; that's one week of the 12+ weeks it took to get the basic functions of the job we did. I asked this girl to take care of washing up the dishes in the kitchen sink. During our shifts we did not have the luxury of set meal breaks. We relieved each other's positions as we could long enough to warm something and bring it back to our work stations. The girl was insulted that I would ask her that, told me she didn't dirty them so she wouldn't wash them, and felt I was picking on her because she was new. Yes, I could see why she would think that. After all, she'd only been there a week and didn't know what I did. So I sat down next to her and explained to her why she, of the 7 people in the building at the time, was my best choice for that task. I asked her what she would do if one of the two ladies I had working the radio channels dispatching suddenly threw up or fainted. What if we had a patrol unit set off his emergency alarm? What if one of our units was suddenly shot? What if a detective was out with a fugitive asking for NCIC info over the radio? What if a sudden catastrophic event took place and every one of our 911 lines lit up all at the same time? I told her to think of the worst possible thing that could happen and tell me how she would handle it to which she had no other response besides "I don't know". And my response was that as the person in charge I could not justify sending a person who not only could answer all those questions without hesitation, they could do what needed to be done in a split second without wasting time questioning what they were doing or why. If I was going to have just 6 people available to answer a call for help or handle an emergency I needed all 6 to be able to do the job. It was in the best interest of public safety that she be the one out of the seven to wash dishes for the shift. Period. She didn't know that when she refused and wanted to get all lippy with me but she understood when I explained the why's that she couldn't fathom. In the world I lived in it was absolutely without a doubt 110% required that when instruction was given by authority above me that I did not question even when it was something as menial as washing dishes (which I did plenty of). It was much like the military. A lot of the inconsequential to-dos were every bit as important as the ones that dictated life and death. Every task had to be carried out immediately unless specified otherwise without question in order to create and form a behavior or habit of instant compliance because when the poo-hit-the-fan there couldn't be time wasted thinking or questioning. That's how people die. And if someone died on my shift it was my hiney as the shift leader that was held responsible and accountable for my shift's mistakes. It's been more than a few years since I lived that life but parts of it are still there and I imagine always will be. There's not a thing wrong with that, either. Nobody does that stuff without it leaving an impression. If it doesn't, you didn't do the job. Yep, it's a Barney-Fife-ism that I come by honest by having served my community when the world turned upside-down. And, yes, I'm proud to have lived that part of my life and acquired the quirks that go with it.

Sbkline, I totally get what you've said about the rules/black & white/etc. even if I don't share the same sentiments 100% of the time on the specific topic of pool hopping. I guess my point is that no matter what someone's method of thinking is: black & white, shades of gray, full color, whatever it may be...just because it's different from mine it doesn't make it wrong. Different is just different and there's lots of perspectives out there aside from mine. People will always have their reasoning for being who they are and thinking the way they do. It's not for me to judge, label, or knock anybody whether they're different from me or not. I can agree to disagree and have differences without ugliness gettin' all up in the middle of it. :animwink:

As for my "Official-Official" "Clear As I Can Make It" stance on the whole pool hopping thing...get ready...it's comin' straight from the horse's mouth here...

If you are aware that there's a rule set forth by Disney to not pool hop and there's no life-threatening or other sincerely pressing reason to not abide, don't do it. There's no good reason to. If you still feel the overwhelming urge to partake of a resort pool other than your own you can seek other options without sneaking around or knowingly breaking the rule such as (but not limited to) asking at the front desk, switching to that resort for a night or two, or talking friends or relatives into staying there so you can come "visit". (I like option #3 myself..LOL!) Buuuut, if you happen to be a pool hopper flying under the radar, don't get upset if it doesn't work out for whatever reason. If Disney decides to allow resort pool hopping tomorrow I could officially care less considering swimming isn't my recreation of choice on my WDW vacations.

Thanks y'all and have a magical day! :wave:

 

[sbkline]

I don't think we're all that far apart. We both agree, for the most part, that we should follow the rules in this case. Of course, even if pool hopping were allowed, I still wouldn't do it because, even though I enjoy the pool, it's not worth the effort to me to travel all the way to another resort just to swim in their pool. But regardless, my primary point was my own personal attitude towards those who break the rules against pool hopping. Even though I think they should follow the rules, ultimately, I really don't care, as long as they aren't actually inconveniencing me or the other guests. Even if there is no one else in that pool, SHOULD they still follow the rules and swim in their own? Yes, they should. But does it really make much difference to me if I'm walking by on my way to the bus stop and see someone from another resort in that pool? Or if I'm in that pool minding my own business and I know that family over there doesn't belong here? No, why should it? I'm still having a good time and they aren't effecting me any. So my point was that as long as they aren't clogging up the pool to other guests, people should just enjoy their day and not worry about if someone else is breaking the rules. But, if the employees of that resort catch on and decide to enforce the rules and tell them to leave, I have no problem with that either. It's entirely between the offending party and Disney and it's none of my concern. I just don't see why some people get so upset about someone else pool hopping. If it's not affecting them any, then there's no reason to get their panties in a wad over it. Now, if you walk by an empty pool on your way back to your room, and change into your swimming trunks and come back to the pool to find two Mears Busses full of people unloading and jumping in the pool, thereby imparing your ability to adequately enjoy the pool, then yes, I can see getting upset at that point.

But as far as this part of your post:

Yep, it's a Barney-Fife-ism that I come by honest by having served my community when the world turned upside-down. And, yes, I'm proud to have lived that part of my life and acquired the quirks that go with it.

I think we have a misunderstanding of what Barney-Fife-ism truly is. What you described in your workplace, that isn't what I would consider Barney-Fife-ism. That's just a need for the new person to realize they're new and they need to do what they're told, be happy they have a job and keep their big mouth shut. Barney-Fife-ism is like that idiot that Slappy Magoo mentioned. You have a family emergency, be it a pregnant woman in the car, or an injury or whatever, and you're rushing to the hospital, and the cop escorts you there, tends to the emergency, then proceeds to whip out the old ticket book to give you a citation for breaking the speed laws. That's Barney-Fife-ism in a nutshell. Some simple minded fool being so indoctrinated by the fine print of the law and the rules that he lacks the good common sense and wisdom to discern those times when the letter of the law needs to be overlooked in favor of a higher principle. I tend to be more of an Andy Taylor man, myself. Sherriff Taylor was no slouch when it came to law enforcement, but he also had the wisdom and common sense to know what to address and what things to overlook, without having to cite every little technicality in the book and start writing tickets, like ol' Barney did.

 

[fosse76]

BTW, I once asked a cop about the "What if someone was rushing to the hospital when you pull them over" scenario. His response was "I'd escort them to the hospital, get the emergency workers to hand the situation...and then write the driver a ticket. Because those are the rules."

There isn't a judge in the country that would uphold that ticket. Talk about seeing the law in black and white! The criminal court system is backlogged with cases of cops misusung their authority.

 

[DznyGrlSD]

Remember...Disney doesn't care what we do :lol:

 

[cinderellafan6]

I thought this was a Disney website????????????????

 

[oldshovelhead]

Pool Hopping???

Pool Hopping is ok only if you're a DVC member. It does not however include all of the pools at all of the resorts. The beach club is one of the pools that's off limits unless you're a guest there. Pool hopping is one of the perks for being a DVC member and is advertised that way. As far as visiting any of the resorts, I think it's highly encouraged...what a sales pitch for staying at that reort or for joining the DVC...

 

[Pooh Lover]

I would be so happy if I could fast-forward 24 days to my vacation at the Wilderness Lodge that I wouldn't care who was at my pool! :ROFLOL:

 

[worldfanatic]

Whether against the rules or not, Pool hopping is useless & lame.
"Wow, look at me, I'm using this nice resort's pool!" "Boy, I'm living!"
Pathetic.

Pool hoppers may not admit it or act like it. But they know they're 2nd class citizens at another resort's pool.
Even DVCers, who have the "right" to do it, are lowering themselves when they do it.
As a DVC member, I'm embarrassed by that so called "perk".

Get a life - Don't Pool hop!!!

 

[SMRT-1Michael]

I thought this was a Disney website????????????????

I couldnt agree more. Aren't we all on this site to exchange our knowledge and love for Walt Disney World? :shrug:

 

[ILOVEDISNEY]

Why can't some people realize they are guests at the resort they pay for (if they indeed stay on property), and are "uninvited" guests at other resorts that other guests are paying dearly for? Using the logic of the "uninvited" guests do they also drop in at their neighbors' cookouts, use their pools, wash their cars in the driveway, etc., etc. since they live in the same neighborhood?

 

[sbkline]

There isn't a judge in the country that would uphold that ticket.

Unfortunately, I think you're wrong on that. There are judges out there who have actually awarded damages to a criminal, who had the monumental gall to file a lawsuit, because he was injured while in the process of breaking into a building. With total imbeciles like that sitting on the bench, I have no problem believing that there are idiots out there wearing black robes, who would uphold a ludicrous ticket like that as well. And I also just realized the irony that a criminal breaking into a building to commit a crime can be awarded money for his misdeeds because the owners didn't make the premises safe for burglars. Yet, a person can be fined a hefty amount of money simply for trying to help out a fellow human being in need by rushing him to the hospital! :brick::shrug:

 

[mickey2008.1]

im not a pool hopper, but im not touching this subject! fun to read though.