The Land: Update. Like it or hate it. . . here it is:

[KevinPage]

[*]CIRCLE OF LIFE would remain. Thank GOODNESS . . .
[/list]

This is the point where I chime in.

What does the TRAVEL AGENCY have to do with THE LAND?

Grizz,

You gotta get off the "symbionic relationship" nonsense. You and 10 other internet maniacs are the only ones obsessed with balloons and food courts in here. :lol:

You "spin" this travel agency theme like it's the incarnation of evil. :fork: I'm glad they plan on "tying" everything into a central theme, so the pavillon doesn't feel disjointed. Different modes of transporation allow you to "experience" different terrains of "The Land", doesn't sound that far fetched to me.

The Land is boring in it's current state and potentially getting NEW AA's for Living With the Land, that's a good sign as well, it's needs some refreshing.

Whenever they get rid of "Circle of Life" the transformation will be complete.

I'm prepared for the legion of Grizz worshippers to go nuts on me. :lol: :lol:

 

[KevinPage]

This imminent reality, as any EPCOT admirer will know in his or her gut, is just not right. Instead of encouraging guests to ponder deeply the delicate interconnections between mankind and his planet, The Land will soon be taking what appears to be a superficial, sideshow-like approach to its theme.

Buzzy,

Do you HONESTLY believe that MOST guests even think about this for 1 second when going to The Land? I never have over the years. Do you know why? I was bored to tears with the pavillon, so I didn't pay attention. I always thought that Disney could do better than this. I'm sure the "average guest" who just wants to have fun, needed more to do there.

If I am entertained, I am more attentive and receptive to whatever message they are trying to convey.

Not once have I ever pondered the relationship I had with Mother Earth because of the food court or the balloons. Watching Circle of Life (which is super heavy handed but okay) & Living With the Land give you this message, and those attractions are staying.

Just because The Land is an EPCOT original doesn't mean it's "untouchable" by any stretch pf the imagination.

 

[josh_e_washie]

Hey Everyone,
I think that the idea of converting The Land's theming to that of a travel agency is a bit...well...too much of a hokey change. I just can't see it happening and I really can't see WDI creating something like this. They are much more talented and creative than that. I know that they have made some (INCREDIBLE) fumbles in the past (most notably Chester and Hester, DCA), but the proposed Land revamp seems to be too much.
I say we wait for actual, concrete confirmation. I'm not saying I think that anyone is a liar, I'd just hate for everyone to get so angry about something that won't ultimately happen.
HOWEVER...it is so great to see so many people as (if not leaps and bounds more) passionate than I am about The Land Pavillion!!!

 

[tomm4004]

The beginning of The Land is one of my favourite things in all WDW - the rain forest, desert, prairie and farm. I hope they don't get rid of this. They've already taken WofM, Horizons, and ruined Journey. I suppose it's inevitable.

 

[Lee]

I have been a skeptic of the Travel Agency theme since I first heard it. Not because I wouldn't like it, but because I didn't see how they could make it work.
Pondering it this morning, and reading some really good posts in this thread, I have come to a conclusion......I think I like it.

Anything to bring more life to the Land is a huge benefit in my eyes. Lunch at Garden Grill at the July meet was the first time I had set foot in the Land in a few years. Why? Because it held no interest for me. The boat ride....done that. Circle of Life...sad to say...done that :snore:. Sunshine Season...eh...no biggie.

I am one of a type of Disney freak that are often under-represented. Disney parks are my passion. They are how I spend my spare time now, and hopefully in a couple years, all my time. I love all of Walt's visions, and most of the original attractions that have come and gone. But, having said that, I am a person who MUST, first and foremost, be entertained. Sadly, the Land was not entertaining to me...at all. That is why I am totally in favor of the pavillion getting a serious refurbishment, yes, even with a Travel Agency theme. If it gets the Pavillion's message across, and manages to be fun at the same time...wonderful.

Symbiosis? Don't care. Learning experience? No thanks. Entertain me. Entertain me well, put a smile on my face, and make me to ride the ride again.
That is what Soarin brings to the table. As I have said before, I would trade EVERYTHING in the Land for just Soarin.

Discoveryland? Bring it on. The concept of "future" or "tomorrow" as a theme is dead. I know it, WDI knows it, and anyone that has watched a Tomorrowland turn into Yesterland knows it deep down.

End of rambling rant...probably too early for me to get this serious. :wave:

 

[bork]

The park in its former format was failing to draw the crowds, especially after MGM and DAK opened. The additions have been done to the taste of the general public, and the crowds are actually returning.

I've heard this before, but I have trouble seeing this in the attendance numbers.
In the years from 92-94, MK drew 11-12 million, Epcot 9.5-10 and MGM 8.

All of the parks peaked in 97 and are now down about 3 million from their peaks since AK opened. AK hurt all 3 parks equally.

Over the past couple years, MK has drawn 14 million, ahead of it's numbers a decade ago. MGM is at 8 million, right at it's numbers from a decade ago. Meanwhile, Epcot is at 8-8.5 million, well behind it's numbers from a decade ago.

So it would appear that Epcot is doing worse since they began replacing the original pavillions in 94.

Edit: Here is a chart of attendance numbers, if anyone is interested.

 

[GenerationX]

The travel agency idea as another way to tie the attractions together (the other being obviously the celebration of the Land itself) seems fine to me. If Soarin' is to be a flight and Living with the Land a cruise, then what is Circle of Life going to be? The only analogy I could draw to a travel agency would be for it to represent a business trip you have to take for remedial training. Nothing else fits the dull, heavy-handed, and simple-minded themes of Circle of Life. It's anvillicious and then some.

Is there any news on adding interactive exhibits? This, to me, is the best format to educate in an entertaining way.

 

[speck76]

I've heard this before, but I have trouble seeing this in the attendance numbers.
In the years from 92-94, MK drew 11-12 million, Epcot 9.5-10 and MGM 8.

All of the parks peaked in 97 and are now down about 3 million from their peaks since AK opened. AK hurt all 3 parks equally.

Over the past couple years, MK has drawn 14 million, ahead of it's numbers a decade ago. MGM is at 8 million, right at it's numbers from a decade ago. Meanwhile, Epcot is at 8-8.5 million, well behind it's numbers from a decade ago.

So it would appear that Epcot is doing worse since they began replacing the original pavillions in 94.

They are doing worse up until last year for a variety of reasons.

1. The 1994 expansion of MGM (Sunset Blvd) and Tot addition
2. The Opening of DAK in 1998
3. The 2 year delay of Test Track, along with the opening of RnRC at MGM
4. The economic fall-off which began to hit Orlando in late 2000
5. 9/11/01

MGM was not really competition for Epcot until 1994, as before that, MGM was pretty much a 1/2-day park. The opening of DAK in 1998 (along with the average length-of-stay for guests not increasing by 1 whole day) did hurt all of the parks, but really hurt Epcot and MGM the most. Add to this the massive delays with TT, along with MGM's expansion in 1999, and Epcot became the big loser.

Attendance is up at least 18% this year, according to releases from WDC and quarterly reports. This would be due to both MS, and the improving economy.

 

[KevinPage]

I love Soarin. I rode it at DCA, and it ranked really high on my favorite things list, but man....it's just not worth destroying something as original as The Land Pavillion, or it's precious contents.

What is so "precious" about The Land? I hear all this talk about destroying this ambience of the pavillon. But what is so "special" that they are removing? Currently it's boring, noisey and crowded with all those tables.

They are keeping the Garden Grill and the 2 attractions currently there. Is a water fountain, balloons and food court the pinnacle of Disney entertainment these days? Give me an attraction any day of the week and tie it in with that.

Soarin' is not some nickel and dime attraction. People make it like some kind of travesty to redo The Land to fit with it. The Land is NOT Cinderella's Castle (ie- something untouchable). Yeah, if they rethemed the castle to fit into Stitch's Great Escape, I'd have major problems with it, but this is not the current case. Soarin' is a BIG deal. I'm glad they are not rubbling the actual Land pavillion itself, like they did for MS and that there will be 3 attractions in a pavillon (as opposed to 1 in TT).

This is a win-win situation all around for guests. The only people opposed to such are people stuck in 1982 that believe that Michael Jackson and the Rubix cube are STILL relevant. :lol: :lol:

P.S. - Grizz, take off your white glove :hurl:

 

[maelstrom]

I don't think I'll ever be able to visit the pavilion again. I made the mistake of visiting Imagination after the rehab, and I've been scarred for life. I guess I'll just stand outside The Land and cry for awhile.

Yes, I'm totally serious. Yes, I'm crazy. No, I don't care.

 

[Hakunamatata]

This is truly a sad day. One of my favorite attractions at EPCOT was The Land Pavillion and the Living with the Land ride. I really enjoy educational attractions and this was one of the last that wasnt tied into a thrill ride. It was a haven you could go to and relax in an atmosphere that wasnt constantly hitting you with marketing or busy visual stimuli. It was just a relaxing place.

I am so frustrated and confused..........

 

[General Grizz]

Kevin, you fail to recognize Epcot's need for "BORING" places.

There are plenty of rowdy areas around Epcot, and, although the Land may be popular (with more visitors than Mission Space or Test Track, I might add), there is value in a peaceful, BORING area. Why aren't you upset at Disney's latest attempt at a garden area over where 20,000 Leagues was? Don't you want a ride? Isn't a garden area "boring" and worthless?

It really isn't - especially at Epcot. You take the hype of Test Track and Mission Space and complement it with a peaceful, serene area -- with a hint of guest courtesy. As you just read a first impression of the Land above, it is the simple pleasure of the pavilion - which can NOT be captured in a queue line - to sit down to serene music, a fountain, and have an ice cream. (Wonders of Life is the only other "peaceful, open" area, but that's closed now).

I've never objected against the Soarin' ride system. But regardless of whether or not you are a fan of the Travel Agency (which I still think is a "plasticization" and an attempt to inauthenticize the beauty of the Land), this is just an example of how Disney doesn't care to maintain the overall spirit and meaning of a pavilion. (If you are indifferent to meaning and spirit and want entertainment, that entertainment CAN be mixed in easily. Disney has proved that from the Wonderful World of Color to the Kitchen Kabaret to Sonny Eclipse). So would Disney be willing to CONTINUE to drop attractions on Epcot that do not necessarily contribute a value?

Wouldn't it be considerate to mold Soarin' - showing EFFORT and DEDICATION on Disney's part - to the Land? This isn't only the Land; the same mindset has invaded other attractions and may potentially do so in the future. So I am not as dissappointed in Disney for what it MAY be doing at the Land, but rather the mindset it takes when attempting to improve attractions.

Clearly, this is a matter of our own interests. Some of us want pure entertainment, others want pure thematics. But what makes Epcot special - at the top slot of the Consumer Reports value chart - is its mix between education, inspiration, fun, new technology, and entertainment. We need the Land to be relevant to Symbiosis (and I WILL give you that crap, because it's necessary). There must be a BALANCE between what the pavilion stands for and what changes come to improve it.

And let's be clear that most of us aren't against a change of design or improvement. If there is a better idea for the balloons, the fountain, the use of the areas of the Land that BOTH enhance the pavilion's HONESTY (yes, honesty!) and ENTERTAINMENT, go for it. Soarin' would have been an excellent example if Disney had decided to mold this attraction to its pavilion's essence.

And I hate to be so negative about this, because a lot of other changes (i.e. Diamond Horseshoe and Imagination) bring about so many complaints. But I'll assure you that not all change is bad; rather, Disney can benefit from a new entertaining experience if they show consideration for a pavilion's entire essence and deliver its true themes in new, exciting ways.

 

[nfeagle5]

There must be a BALANCE between what the pavilion stands for and what changes come to improve it.

I definately agree, there is no sense to destructuralizing the "feel" and "meaning" of the land. They should alter Soarin to fit THE LAND, not vice versa. The theme of THE LAND should remain while Soarin should be brought in and made to fit the Pavillion and what it stands for. Its alright to take away some things to make room but the theme shouldnt be.

 

[Djali999]

I honestly think we all should wait and see what the thing ends up looking like before we begin throwing a big fuss (that seems to be the main objective of this forum anyway). I've read perhaps a scant handful of posts that seemed to be even-handed and clear-headed. I really can't blame certain people for having ingrained a reactionary attitude about any change in themselves after Imagination and World of Motion, but we haven't even seen what the thing will look like yet.

We're also jumping to the conclusion that it will be cheap, loud, and obnoxious. Come on, people.

I'm certain that, had Walt Disney not died when he did, he would have been able to keep the gears of his futurist, progress-minded attitude moving in places like Tomorrowland and Future World (of course, he would have built his E.P.C.O.T., and that woulda been something). Anybody know offhand how many times he totally overhauled Tomorrowland before he died? I honestly can't recall but I think if we count the 1959 expansion, three.

The simple fact is that America's idealism for the future has faded significantly and now everybody's into nostalgia. The Tomorrowlands at WDW and DL have been changed accordingly (DL became more of a psuedo-Future World). Both changes are, at least in concept, an improvement. Imagineering gave up on the "world of the future" concept as early as 1993, and it's telling that Paris got "Discoveryland". And about the same time, WDI began looking into things like Tomorrowland 2055 and whatnot. I know a lot of you are going to find this heresy, but I think the concept of a "future past" makes a lot more sense than a "future present", which is always changing. A "future past" allows a much greater scope of fancy and design, and I think the original WDW Tomorrowland '95 was kind of brilliant. It was bold, exciting, and just a little dark at the edges. That's not what we have now, but that's a rant for another time.

But now I'm way off topic...

Just wait and see. New does not always equal cheap and loud, and I think Disney is doing an awful lot right recently. And as much as I loved the original Epcot, we have to be realistic here and admit that it wasn't really what the general public wanted from a theme park. I still find Epcot to be entertaining, peaceful in many areas, and generally inspiring.

I'm not too thrilled about the prospect of a Travel Agency, but I again forewarn you all that we must wait and see before we decide and let it color our perception. If somebody here had a concrete plan and layout of the changes I'd be more confident, but I can't let anything ride on two words alone.

 

[jrriddle]

End of rambling rant...probably too early for me to get this serious. :wave:

Good Rant. I agree. The Land is (was) pretty dull (and I'm originally from the Canadian Prairies so you would think I would find some of it interesting).
Bring on some new stuff for my entertainment!

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Interesting mindset

This is my first post, but this hits me very close to home.

I was born in 1982, so please understand I am not living in the past of 1982 as some have said. I started visiting EPCOT Center in 1987. Listen to the Land got me interested in science. In fact, the entirety of EPCOT was inspirational at least. I worked at The Land in the greenhouses in 2002, and this worries me direly. I understand the 70's-ish view of the Land, and I see the need to update. The problem I have is that Disney as of recently has been apt to dramatically change/destroy everything in Epcot. If the Travel Agency theme is used to promote the theme of The Land, it has potential, but WDI and Management has not been so keen on smoothly transitioning Epcot themes into their former counterparts (just look at IMAG). I remember when ToT was opened and Splash Mountain. While they may have been somewhat different, they blended in seamlessly with their surroundings to the point where I hardly remember the way it was before. Even replacement attractions like AE and Buzz Lightyear worked to merely replace and "slip in" in their respective niches. That is obviously not the case now.

Epcot is becoming trite and simple, deadly to this type of park. The original park brought so many visitors because of its grandeur IMHO. These new attractions, while fun, are certainly not grand. Their time of popularity will be significantly shorter. To think TT is going to be like Pirates is laughable.

It becomes a matter of story telling. I know, people are thinking the Travel Agency idea is adding story. That may be, but the difference is comparing Dr. Suess to Hemmingway. Suess is wonderful, nice, and understandable, but it is simple. You read it once and glean 90% of what is there. Others take more time (i.e. MORE VISITS) to understand fully. The messages of Epcot should not be viewable in one trip around a track (as should none of Disney's best attractions). Part of me is torn because that is what the American public wants, but I think, at least in part, Disney has higher aspirations to uphold. The money may not be there immediately, but is building an $85 million attraction that will be passe in 5 years worth the costs if well-designed story telling and ambient themeing could keep it fresh for another 10 years (again see the redo of Imagination travesty).

Sorry to vent on this, but I think Disney needs to get back to what it did well for so long. Superficiality was never the Disney way. If nothing exists but what is seen on the surface, no reason exists to return. Good business for the short term that kills any chance for the business to survive in the longterm. Everything they say about excitement and technology doesn't hold true. If it did, Pirates, Mansion, the entirety of World Showcase, etc. would all have been on hte chopping block long ago.

 

[MissM]

Sorry, but I have to say I don't see this as being such a bad idea. It's a way of tying it all together. Like someone else mentioned, now it brings the "air travel" of Soarin' in the same place with the "cruise" of the boat ride. It seems like a - gasp, dare I say it - creative overlay for something that would otherwise be just random, scattered and unconnected rides. It brings some cohesion to the pavillion and I think that's not a bad idea. I'd like to see the food court redone to follow that theme - perhaps some additional "journies" or "explorations" of food. I believe it also helps segway the Land as a buffer between Future World and the World Showcase. It's a little bit of both. Technology meets exploration of the world.

Dunno, I don't really see it being this massive, horrible thing. I love my classics and there are some re-dos that I definately agree go south, but in theory at least, this doesn't sound like such a bad idea to me. Sorry that I don't find everything perfect with the Land as it is, but I don't. It's kinda old, and outdated and I rarely ever meander in there. It just doesn't serve much of a purpose. Last time I went (for lunch), the place was empty - and the park wasn't.

*shrugs*

I understand worry and apprehension over changes, but I for one am interested to see if this can be done to bring cohesion to the pavillion - something I feel it strongly needs.
-m

 

[Hakunamatata]

I definately agree, there is no sense to destructuralizing the "feel" and "meaning" of the land. They should alter Soarin to fit THE LAND, not vice versa. The theme of THE LAND should remain while Soarin should be brought in and made to fit the Pavillion and what it stands for. Its alright to take away some things to make room but the theme shouldnt be.

I can state from personal experience ( I have riden Soarin at DCA) that the only common thread between the Soarin ride and The Land, is that you are "soarin" over some land.

The Soarin ride theme at DCA is based on California aviation history. The ride que goes through an "airplane hanger" with bio info on many of California's aviation pioneers and "living legends" of California aviation. Then you go into a big room, sit down in the ride vehicle, are lifted up to face a large screen, then the ride starts and you are "soaring" over a number of California scenes.

If this ride is truly cloaned and everything from the ride que to the movie is the same, it will not fit in with The Land. The only reason I can see for the Travel Agency theme is that it fits in with aviation to some extent and a future version of the "soarin" movie will fit the theme, i.e., "soaring over all the major vacation spots in the world that tourist like to pay money to travel agents to go see...... " Not to mention that the "Soarin" building stands out on the skyline and total ruins the view from "upper Canada".

Anyway, change for change sake is never good. I believe that given the amount of time to budge, plan, and build in the "Soarin" system (building, ride, and pavillion changes) that there was pleanty of time to have a version of the "movie" that would be more applicable to the more international aspect of EPCOT, needless to say, the scientific essence of The Land. This is just another example of trying to get more thrill rides into EPCOT to please the thrill seaking public as quickly and cheaply as possible.

:wave:

 

[Kopp8699]

The Land was always one of my favorite pavillions (with Horizons, World of Motion, and Journey Into Imagination) when I was younger. With the changed rides and the losing of the other pavillions, the Land has become my favorite. It's still the same relaxing pavillion it ever was at Epcot. Epcot was such a nice relaxing park, I didn't feel like there was a real rush to get on the attractions to beat the crowds it was nice. Plus with Living with the Land being one of my favorite attraction, it was nice for me to be able to relax in that pavillion before a nice ride. We always sat by the fountain while we ate lunch at the food court, my favorite lunch place in Epcot because of the variety. I enjoyed the relaxing atmosphere and the theme... Plus it always seemed special because my dad, who doesn't like WDW really enjoyed the Land because he has a garden in the summer which now streches out almost our whole backyard. It was always relaxing and nice for me, plus the fountain I always thought was impressive. I love looking at fountains and I always thought the Land's was very nice. But I digress. It was one of the only relaxing and entertaining pavillions left, the only one I see remaining is Spaceship Earth.

 

[KevinPage]

Kevin, you fail to recognize Epcot's need for "BORING" places.

I am not against boring places, just whole pavillons that are totally boring. Adding Soarin' to The Land will still have areas that are boring to it (Circle of Life & Living With the Land, namely), plus it has yet to be determined how 'crowded' the floor will be with the removal of the fountain and tables. Maybe the new food court/restuarant will be more peaceful.

Why aren't you upset at Disney's latest attempt at a garden area over where 20,000 Leagues was? Don't you want a ride? Isn't a garden area "boring" and worthless?

The area sat dormant, so they are finally doing something to it. This will help the overall theming of Fantasyland, so for NOW it is a positive. If they keep it a garden forever and never put an attraction there, YES I would be upset. But current "rumor" has it that they have plans but nothing definite, so I don't have any reason to get all excited/upset.

You have to take each park/area or attraction in contrast with it's whole. Epcot has World Showcase which is relaxing. I myself don't need alot of "relaxing" areas in Future World. I want more rides and things to do. Future World is so spread out, I find it peaceful enough walking around outside. If I need to sit down, I'll go to Electric Umbrella or Innoventions.

You take the hype of Test Track and Mission Space and complement it with a peaceful, serene area -- with a hint of guest courtesy. As you just read a first impression of the Land above, it is the simple pleasure of the pavilion - which can NOT be captured in a queue line - to sit down to serene music, a fountain, and have an ice cream. (Wonders of Life is the only other "peaceful, open" area, but that's closed now).

I'm all for a nice balance of things, hence that is what Disney does better than anyone else. I'm not expecting Six Flags craziness nor would I want that. But Epcot has had toooooo many "peaceful", "boring" or "dead" areas as of late. So when I hear of a potential new attraction and re-theme from a boring theme, I'm happy. It could turn out brillant, crappy, or somewhere in between. I'm not about to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge yet though, I'll take a positive and excited approach and hope for the best in the meantime.

But regardless of whether or not you are a fan of the Travel Agency (which I still think is a "plasticization" and an attempt to inauthenticize the beauty of the Land), this is just an example of how Disney doesn't care to maintain the overall spirit and meaning of a pavilion.

So Disney is deliberately out to "stick it" to The Land on purpose? Did The Land ______ on someone's Wheaties or something? This is total conspiracy theory craziness. The Land is a building, not a living organism that someone has a vendetta against.

So would Disney be willing to CONTINUE to drop attractions on Epcot that do not necessarily contribute a value?

We disagree on this point. I don't see how it doesn't add any value to Epcot or The Land. You are flying over landscapes for crying out loud. If Patrick Warburton talked about the environmental impacts of things or what crops are grown in this area, would that make it better?

Wouldn't it be considerate to mold Soarin' - showing EFFORT and DEDICATION on Disney's part - to the Land?

I'm not of the belief that the spirit of the pavillon, as you feel, is being destroyed. I don't see how this is still not going to be about "the land". The 2 attractions that exist there now are still going to be there, The Garden Grill is still going to be there. Fountains, balloons and that food court (which was nice) didn't make me think of Mother Nature one bit.

The WAY in which the message is presented will be altered, but not the meaning.

But what makes Epcot special - at the top slot of the Consumer Reports value chart - is its mix between education, inspiration, fun, new technology, and entertainment.

And it was lacking in the new tech and entertainment department, hence why we are getting MORE rides. I would have preferred MS & TT be part of a pavillon with other things to do, but this is what SOARIN' is going to be, PART of a pavillon with other attractions and such. Just because they decided to tailor the pavillon to a ride, doesn't make it evil. MAYBE, just MAYBE it was a superior way to present the message of The Land. Just because this was an original Epcot idea, doesn't make it superior to any newer idea.

nd let's be clear that most of us aren't against a change of design or improvement. If there is a better idea for the balloons, the fountain, the use of the areas of the Land that BOTH enhance the pavilion's HONESTY (yes, honesty!) and ENTERTAINMENT, go for it. Soarin' would have been an excellent example if Disney had decided to mold this attraction to its pavilion's essence.

Disney feels this is an improvement and is willing to spend the $$$ to do it. I'll side with the people who design these things and are spending their own $$$ on it. You have no actual proof that this will turn out bad. It could, but I prefer to look at the glass half full, given that all the information that has been leaked sounds good IMHO

And I hate to be so negative about this, because a lot of other changes (i.e. Diamond Horseshoe and Imagination) bring about so many complaints.

I agree, dumb moves that didn't work.

Disney can benefit from a new entertaining experience if they show consideration for a pavilion's entire essence and deliver its true themes in new, exciting ways.

Which is exactly what I feel they are doing in this case. Delivering the theme of the land in a NEW way, via a Travel Agency. We shall see if it lives up to the hype or flops.

The main beef I have with your argeument is that you ASSUME it's going to stink and make rather illogical statements (to me) like PEACE, SYMBIOSIS, INTEGRITY, when they hold no weight in your arguement.

Can you please take off the white glove ? :lol: :hurl: :lol: :hurl:

And I expect a new avatar ripping me up shortly.