DaptoFunlandGuy

"Introducing...."

I know the tip, that's how I access the articles, (but here's a hot tip - yesterday I went through google, and STILL got paywalled the first time. I had to close and reopen it twice before it let me in), but the posting of a news link here, without the article text inevitably gets someone going "i can't access it, it's behind a paywall" - and then cue several back-and-forth posts from people like you or me who know how to do it explaining to people how to access it through google. In the end, (for mine at least) i'd rather the article just got posted like @GoGoBoy said - plus, if the text is posted in the thread, it future proof's the thread against changed links on the external site. I went trawling back through the Kraken thread the other day, and the amount of broken links and hotlinked images that were broken was huge. As for clogging the thread, the article is precisely on topic, so I disagree it's doing anything but contributing.

What are they teaching in schools these days? Lichtenstein

For those who get a paywall... PAYWALL AVOIDANCE

You asked for it... raking, computerised, there. Since this is an Australian site, the American spelling using a Z in place of an S is technically incorrect. Clearly your American spell checker missed that one. I won't start on missed capitals or missing punctuation, but there's a bit of that too.

For me, whilst I understand DCA missed the mark when it opened, the revamp it had to bring it to where it is today was great. I liked that it wasn't as 'immersive' as Disney, and that, like Disneyland - many attractions didn't rely on an IP (or at least an immersive one) to function. Paradise Pier's intention (in it's second incarnation) was to be a slightly disney-fied beachside boardwalk. It didn't need Pixar slathered all over it (although Toy Story Midway Mania fitted because the midway could be found on those great beachside piers). I'm not the sort of Disney fan that insists on everything being kept how it was - i'm happy for them to continuously improve, change, try new things, but everything of late seems to be focussed around the IP, rather than the experience itself. I look forward to seeing what they come up with, and i'm sure that they'll do a good job with it - but i'll still lament the loss of some of the old school 'themed just because' rather than 'themed because it ties in with a film'

Yes. Yes they did. Firstly, if the timeline for it to open in September is correct - then we're talking first promo with two months to go. Secondly, instead of teaser trailers, social media imagery, etc etc, they got a NEWS crew to come and film a piece on it. Hardly creative. Kraken was also due to open in September 2015. Around July, AW's facebook page was posting construction pics: Now, I've spent a few minutes trying to find the exact moment we had the teaser image for Kraken (the Kraken's Eye) but i've grown impatient. Needless to say - Mark was telling us teaser details back in March: On July 15th last year, Adventure World were already selling season passes: So yes, ball dropped. Maybe they've picked it up, but they've certainly lost ground.

I'm not familiar enough with the case to know what happened. Maybe they do owe employee benefits and entitlements? Those who know me fairly well know a few things about my day job, so to answer your question, i'm aware of exactly what it takes to prove trading whilst insolvent, and its not as difficult as you suggest, but definitely not on topic here and so i won't delve further. Now, again, restating that I haven't read the case, the info posted above suggests 'first defendant' and 'second defendant' - which would imply that both the company, and one of the directors of the company were sued separately and severally (and the article quoted above confirms this), so if the outcome of the case was liability on both, then of course you can seize the assets of both to meet judgments against both parties (separately), depending on the judge's orders - therefore Rappa's suggestion that the company AND director assets be seized is perfectly reasonable, considering they've both plead poor before the court. I didn't lack any context. Your precise statement was "You can't take assets of directors of a company because they are not personally liable for any outstanding money the company may owe." My response stated that it wasn't entirely accurate. I then stated in the context of liability and company solvency, generally what you have said is correct, but that there are times when directors are personally liable. If anybody's post was lacking context it was yours, by the very fact that you didn't, as you pointed out above, specify that your broad umbrella statement was in fact limited to the specific circumstances of the case. That said, based on the article posted above, which referred to both the company, and one of its directors pleading guilty, that means both company and director have accepted liability and are liable, so in context, it isn't money the company owes (they're fined separately by the court) but money the director owes (based on the judgment entered against them as a result of their plea an individual), so again I restate that you could seize the assets of the director to meet the judgment entered against them personally, which was Rappa's point.

Something used to revive a dormant topic to elicit renewed discussion?

Haven't we already had a photo of the site posted recently? Or was that another park/

I had completely forgotten about the barge set ups some of these companies do, and of course you are right. Still, with the lake filled in beyond the lighthouse, any 'full-size' \ 'worth the effort' dancing fountain barge is gonna need to be pretty big, and even if you can move it from front stage, it's still going to take up lots of room. Personally I think if they went with that idea, they'd need to utilise it more than just an evening finale show for it to be worth it - for example the way the lake at DCA has minor 'recitals' with music backing throughout the day, but I guess it wouldn't take much to move it out and in a few times a day.

Indeed - that first hill is going to result in a pretty awesome *POP*!

Not entirely accurate. In the context of accident liability and the solvency of the company, yes, the directors are generally protected, but directors of a company ARE personally liable for several company obligations: debts incurred when the company becomes insolvent company losses caused by a breach of directors’ duties if you act as a guarantor or provide security over personal assets debts incurred by the company acting as trustee illegal phoenix activity other regulatory action that might be taken against you. Even more specifically than that, many employer obligations (PAYG Withholding from employee wages and Employer superannuation contributions) can be applied as a liability to all Directors both separately and severally under the Director Penalty Regime.

Why is it @Mark Shaw that lately, no matter what you say, I feel like you have a lot more to say that you can't, and you're just teasing us all with your seemingly benign comments?

The Mt Coot-tha proposal is for a 'zip line' in the council briefing docs, but I don't see any reason why a Zip coaster couldn't be part of their attraction line-up.

Those nutcases wouldn't see it for what it was, would disregard it as propaganda, or alternatively pick up one poorly phrased sentence and use it against them as proof of something that doesn't exist.

Ladies and gentlemen, let's hear it for the new Chief Justice of the High Court - Justice Rappa!!! (no, not sarcasm - i'm genuinely supportive of your proposal).

I think it would have suited 1980's Scenic World very well, but these days they build capacity rich attractions that can take a load of people. this, while a great idea, is low capacity and very niche.

the main thing to consider is that most fountain jets (especially the dancing ones like the bellagio and California Adventure) need to be only JUST below the surface. Having a jet ski rider travelling at high speed anywhere near them is a recipe for disaster and serious injury. To have something as immersive and intricate as Bellagio or WoC, there would be little space for jet skis to traverse safely, unless they were to install the rising platforms WoC has - which would require a deeper lake, and an ability to entirely drain it for service and maintenance, which would require massive works as the lake is connected to the broadwater, and is at level with the water table. Side note: mods, is it possible to have this conversation split from the jellies topic, perhaps into a 'sea world lakeside attraction ideas' thread or something?

Clearly I missed an emoticon to indicate it as just a bit of fun. *sigh*

it would give something to keep the crowds in the park into the evening, improving opportunities for food and beverage sales too.

Thanks for the update @Jobe! Always nice to hear LPS making progress...

In all honesty, I'm not entirely against the idea of Sea World doing a fountain in the main lake. Since they axed the ski show and tried replacing it several times with various things, nothing has really captured the original 'must see this if you go' mentality that the ski show had - it was iconic, much like Police Academy was for Movie World. Now, to be honest, bringing back the ski show (or police academy for that matter) now would be a mistake - the world has moved on, and those sorts of shows are no longer enough to captivate the audience. Instead, i'd love to see Sea World install a bellagio \ World of Colour style attraction in the lake. For me, Bellagio was a great attraction whilst walking down the boulevard in LV, and WoC was a spectacular night show. During the day, you can have it run regularly, and it would be the relaxing front of the park for people to enjoy, and relax. You could still use the lake for jet skis and such provided certain precautions were taken, or potentially the way Disney does with WoC and have elevating platforms. It'd also be a great photo spot for holidaymakers (and weddings \ functions) but it would also give Sea World something to close later in the day, a final show before everyone goes home that draws people to the front of the park. I'm pretty sure we have discussed this concept before, and I think one of the bigger problems with it was the salt water in the lake - but I can't imagine it would be that big of an issue to resolve. Of course, this isn't me saying do a fountain instead of a coaster \ flat ride \ etc, but i'd like to see them do something awesome with the lake that didn't rely on corny slapstick humour, or a bunch of guys revving their jetskis up and down the lake for 10 minutes twice a day.

Although mid-air collisions do occur, don't most plane crashes occur on the ground?

To be honest, i think this is probably a better idea than trying to build a custom coaster up there. I'd love to see the hammon's do this.