Describe California Adventure in a nutshell

[TP2000]

I get the sense that it's just eating you up that you're unable to support your case and sway my opinion. Why? Does it take away from your own enjoyment of the park if you can't get others to think the same way?

Actually, all I'm interested in at this point is seeing an attractive picture of Bigfoot Rapids. Got any?

 

[Ziffell]

Actually, all I'm interested in at this point is seeing an attractive picture of Bigfoot Rapids. Got any?

You don't read posts very carefully, do you? :lol: (see below... or above in my original post)

Checking archives, doing extensive searches of photos on the internet, and taking the time to put together exhaustive lists to prove your point seems to be your thing, but it's really not mine. I'm happy to keep this conversation going while I sit here on my couch watching tv, because it's an entertaining discussion. But "proving" my point isn't nearly as important to me as it seems to be to you. I get the sense that it's just eating you up that you're unable to support your case and sway my opinion. Why? Does it take away from your own enjoyment of the park if you can't get others to think the same way?

 

[TP2000]

You don't read posts very carefully, do you? :lol: (see below... or above in my original post)

So you don't have a Bigfoot Rapids picture to share then?

We'll do a popular repeat then, for the kids at home.

Bigfoot Rapids, Knott's Berry Farm

 

[Ziffell]

So you don't have a Bigfoot Rapids picture to share then?

There's an old saying, "Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand a debate?"

I think your reasons for continually attempting to keep this discussion focused on one attraction are obvious. :wave::lol:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

There's an old saying, "Do you consider your position so weak that it cannot withstand a debate?"

I think your reasons for continually attempting to keep this discussion focused on one attraction are obvious. :wave::lol:

This is an exceedingly odd reply in the context of this exchange.

To recap:

* Ziffell started off by saying Bigfoot Rapids was just as good as Grizzly River Run.

* TP2000 responded with photos of both attractions.

* Ziffell responded by discounting the photos, claiming that the GRR photos showed signs of artistic touchups and the BfR photos were of poor quality — implying some degree of bias (whether conscious or not) in using those particular photos to compare the rides.

* TP2000 responded by asking Ziffell for any better BfR photos to form a more fair basis of comparison.

* Ziffell declined this offer, implying that the entire exercise was beneath him and he didn't really care that much. Fair enough, I guess.

* The discussion then veered and weaved through some other issues and eventually culminated in this most recent exchange, in which the same two antagonists reprised their role from earlier in the thread.

But then things seemed to end on this odd note, with Ziffell (who had made it clear he wasn't interested in defending his opinion on BfR vs. GRR through any means of substantive comparison) implying that TP2000 (who had made a considerable effort to provide a substantive basis for debating the issue) was somehow avoiding debate.

Again: The participant who had said explicitly on more than one occasion that he refused to engage the other in any discussion of the issue (whether because he felt unable to back up his own opinion, genuinely found the whole exercise pointless, or felt it was all based on opinion and thus beyond the realm of debate altogether we can't know...but that doesn't really matter) implied that the participant who had expressed a deep interest — almost an eagerness — to debate the issue of avoiding a debate.

This strikes me as a pretty profound level of intellectual dishonesty. It's a pattern I've noted from the poster currently calling himself Ziffell (previously posting under usernames like agent86, Animal, and at least one other that doesn't come to mind readily). This individual enjoys using what I would consider rhetorical tricks that allow him to end an exchange by declaring some semblance of "victory" in the preceding debate — assuming you don't look at them too closely. I've picked up on previous examples of this too.

I suppose I find it so unfortunate mainly because this user (in all of his iterations that I've previously identified) seems to take such relish in parsing other users' posts for their exact meaning, down to the most nuanced level. It seems to be a standard he (for reasons other conscious or unrecognized, I have no idea) is unwilling to extend to his own posts. And because few (if any) other posters possess the zeal for nitpicking others' words to the level he himself does, these inconsistencies are rarely (if ever) explicitly noted by other users.

I just wanted to make sure the viewing audience was aware of what had taken place here, if indeed this thread is on its final legs.

And P.S.: Yes, I overthink things. I'll save anyone the trouble of pointing that out. :lol:

 

[hpyhnt 1000]

This is an exceedingly odd reply in the context of this exchange.

To recap:

* Ziffell started off by saying Bigfoot Rapids was just as good as Grizzly River Run.

* TP2000 responded with photos of both attractions.

* Ziffell responded by discounting the photos, claiming that the GRR photos showed signs of artistic touchups and the BfR photos were of poor quality — implying some degree of bias (whether conscious or not) in using those particular photos to compare the rides.

* TP2000 responded by asking Ziffell for any better BfR photos to form a more fair basis of comparison.

* Ziffell declined this offer, implying that the entire exercise was beneath him and he didn't really care that much. Fair enough, I guess.

* The discussion then veered and weaved through some other issues and eventually culminated in this most recent exchange, in which the same two antagonists reprised their role from earlier in the thread.

But then things seemed to end on this odd note, with Ziffell (who had made it clear he wasn't interested in defending his opinion on BfR vs. GRR through any means of substantive comparison) implying that TP2000 (who had made a considerable effort to provide a substantive basis for debating the issue) was somehow avoiding debate.

Again: The participant who had said explicitly on more than one occasion that he refused to engage the other in any discussion of the issue (whether because he felt unable to back up his own opinion, genuinely found the whole exercise pointless, or felt it was all based on opinion and thus beyond the realm of debate altogether we can't know...but that doesn't really matter) implied that the participant who had expressed a deep interest — almost an eagerness — to debate the issue of avoiding a debate.

This strikes me as a pretty profound level of intellectual dishonesty. It's a pattern I've noted from the poster currently calling himself Ziffell (previously posting under usernames like agent86, Animal, and at least one other that doesn't come to mind readily). This individual enjoys using what I would consider rhetorical tricks that allow him to end an exchange by declaring some semblance of "victory" in the preceding debate — assuming you don't look at them too closely. I've picked up on previous examples of this too.

I suppose I find it so unfortunate mainly because this user (in all of his iterations that I've previously identified) seems to take such relish in parsing other users' posts for their exact meaning, down to the most nuanced level. It seems to be a standard he (for reasons other conscious or unrecognized, I have no idea) is unwilling to extend to his own posts. And because few (if any) other posters possess the zeal for nitpicking others' words to the level he himself does, these inconsistencies are rarely (if ever) explicitly noted by other users.

I just wanted to make sure the viewing audience was aware of what had taken place here, if indeed this thread is on its final legs.

And P.S.: Yes, I overthink things. I'll save anyone the trouble of pointing that out. :lol:

A new career I sense for you: analyst on ESPN or contributor for one of the 24-hour networks. :lol:

It was a good analysis. :wave:

 

[TP2000]

I just wanted to make sure the viewing audience was aware of what had taken place here, if indeed this thread is on its final legs.

Thank you so much for that brilliant recap. It helped me a great deal, and I appreciate the insight into the other players here. It also made me realize that I wasn't going batty in my old age, which is entirely possible at times, I do admit.

And if it helps any, I thoroughly enjoyed this thread. It was far more entertaining and fun for me than anything currently on Television. :lol:

Just a shame no one was able to dig up better looking pictures of Bigfoot Rapids. That was all I could find that could be linked to from my 3 minute Google searches.

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

This is an exceedingly odd reply in the context of this exchange.

To recap:

* Ziffell started off by saying Bigfoot Rapids was just as good as Grizzly River Run.

* TP2000 responded with photos of both attractions.

* Ziffell responded by discounting the photos, claiming that the GRR photos showed signs of artistic touchups and the BfR photos were of poor quality — implying some degree of bias (whether conscious or not) in using those particular photos to compare the rides.

* TP2000 responded by asking Ziffell for any better BfR photos to form a more fair basis of comparison.

* Ziffell declined this offer, implying that the entire exercise was beneath him and he didn't really care that much. Fair enough, I guess.

* The discussion then veered and weaved through some other issues and eventually culminated in this most recent exchange, in which the same two antagonists reprised their role from earlier in the thread.

But then things seemed to end on this odd note, with Ziffell (who had made it clear he wasn't interested in defending his opinion on BfR vs. GRR through any means of substantive comparison) implying that TP2000 (who had made a considerable effort to provide a substantive basis for debating the issue) was somehow avoiding debate.

Again: The participant who had said explicitly on more than one occasion that he refused to engage the other in any discussion of the issue (whether because he felt unable to back up his own opinion, genuinely found the whole exercise pointless, or felt it was all based on opinion and thus beyond the realm of debate altogether we can't know...but that doesn't really matter) implied that the participant who had expressed a deep interest — almost an eagerness — to debate the issue of avoiding a debate.

This strikes me as a pretty profound level of intellectual dishonesty. It's a pattern I've noted from the poster currently calling himself Ziffell (previously posting under usernames like agent86, Animal, and at least one other that doesn't come to mind readily). This individual enjoys using what I would consider rhetorical tricks that allow him to end an exchange by declaring some semblance of "victory" in the preceding debate — assuming you don't look at them too closely. I've picked up on previous examples of this too.

I suppose I find it so unfortunate mainly because this user (in all of his iterations that I've previously identified) seems to take such relish in parsing other users' posts for their exact meaning, down to the most nuanced level. It seems to be a standard he (for reasons other conscious or unrecognized, I have no idea) is unwilling to extend to his own posts. And because few (if any) other posters possess the zeal for nitpicking others' words to the level he himself does, these inconsistencies are rarely (if ever) explicitly noted by other users.

I just wanted to make sure the viewing audience was aware of what had taken place here, if indeed this thread is on its final legs.

And P.S.: Yes, I overthink things. I'll save anyone the trouble of pointing that out. :lol:

Wow!! Very impressive recap.Thanks for bringing us all up to speed.

 

[Ziffell]

Wow!! Very impressive recap.Thanks for bringing us all up to speed.

Not accurate though. And certainly not a "recap". It was too slanted in support of one side in order to really be regarded as just a "recap". It's kind of creepy when one member seems to have an obsession with another. That seems to be the case with Wilt Dasney regarding me. :shrug:

 

[Ziffell]

This is an exceedingly odd reply in the context of this exchange.

Not really, if you've actually been reading this entire thread. The point I was making was that often when a person's position in the overall debate is weak, they will try to make the debate be about something that it's not, in order for their position to appear stronger. There is an actual term for that, but it's escaping me at the moment (worked an 11 hour day today). The other poster was trying to make this debate be about pictures of one single attraction. The implied message was that my refusal to take the time to look up pictures somehow indicated my inability to do so, and therefore that must mean my overall argument is wrong.

In truth, pictures and YouTube videos don't prove a thing in terms of the actual experience of being there. My original statement was that Bigfoot Rapids was just as good as Grizzly River Run. In my opinion, the experience is just as enjoyable. Grizzly River Run is certainly pretty to look at, and if our debate had been about which one of them was prettier, then there would have been no debate. GRR would win no contest. But again, that's not what that aspect of the debate was about. I've had debates with people here about which of two attractions are better themed, and in those situations, I think pictures are a great way of supporting one's point. Not the case here. :wave:

In terms of why I pointed out that the GRR photos looked touched up and the Bigfoot Rapids ones looked like bad photos? Well, they did! :shrug:

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

Hmm. It's just a hunch, but something tells me that we're yet to hear the last of this.

 

[Rufus T Firefly]

It's kind of creepy when one member seems to have an obsession with another. That seems to be the case with Wilt Dasney regarding me. :shrug:

But, are his claims that you have posted under several different user names accurate?

 

[Ziffell]

But, are his claims that you have posted under several different user names accurate?

That's a bit of a stretch. Maybe it's these other posters that he's actually obsessed with, and I just remind him of them. :lol:

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Hmm. It's just a hunch, but something tells me that we're yet to hear the last of this.

Meh. I really am about content to let it lie. Having read the thread, I don't think there was any "debate" waiting to be had. TP and Ziff had pretty much agreed on the lack of merits at DCA. The only difference seemed to be the (admittedly minor) issue of the respective rapids rides. That's why I don't think there was any larger disagreement being avoided by focusing on the rapids. The rapids WAS (were?) the disagreement! :lol:

However, I will say that Ziffell seemed to provide a pretty straightforward and sincere outlay of his thoughts on the issue, so I'm happy to leave it as a difference of perception/opinion if he is.

 

[Ziffell]

The point I was making was that often when a person's position in the overall debate is weak, they will try to make the debate be about something that it's not, in order for their position to appear stronger. There is an actual term for that, but it's escaping me at the moment (worked an 11 hour day today). The other poster was trying to make this debate be about pictures of one single attraction. The implied message was that my refusal to take the time to look up pictures somehow indicated my inability to do so, and therefore that must mean my overall argument is wrong.

I remembered the term... It's called a "straw man argument". Wikipedia has a pretty decent description of what the term means.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

Here's an excerpt:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

 

[Ziffell]

However, I will say that Ziffell seemed to provide a pretty straightforward and sincere outlay of his thoughts on the issue, so I'm happy to leave it as a difference of perception/opinion if he is.

Agreed! :wave:

 

[JLW11Hi]

The ultimate sign an internet forum thread has gone way off course:

The topic has veered off so far on a tangent that people start debating about the process of debating.

But, hey, the Disneyland forum doesn't often get this much action, so why not? :lol: