Loonytunes Construction/Demolition

[Gazza]

^well there was Looney Tunes: Back In Action ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318155/ ) but the fact you couldn't remember that one pretty much validates your point

And as far as those "paid a premium" parts, you will pay just as much if not more at a travelling show of any substance, for attractions that are not the standard of movie world.

But the admission charge for the Melbourne show is $27, which is less than half of the admission fee to MW. I think though that fee is more to do with covering the costs of entertainment in the pavilions, rather than something you pay to have the right to pay for rides.

Firstly, no, there isn't much of a difference. The experience at either will cost you about the same. I don't see what the setting of the park has to do with whether they have an upcharge attraction.

Im just trying to think of a way to explain this. Generally, Upcharge rides are fairly unique, or have constraints that would stop them from working as included cost attraction. Imagine the stress on the animals if it were open slather and everyone could swim with the Dolphins, imagine how much it would cost the park if SW had to run a fleet of helicopters giving free joyrides, imagine the lines parks would get if those bungee rocket things that hold 2 people were free (there are parks that have these), imagine how annoyed people would get if after waiting ages to go on the Flowrider they bomb out after one second and have to get off and re-queue since the operator cant give proper coaching to every rider. I don't think dodgems fit into this category at all, they are a homogeneous attraction that is a staple at many parks, WL had them, DW has them, MW currenty has a kiddy version, Adventure World and Funfields have them in the form of bumper boats etc etc, plus all the overseas parks. It just seems err random to charge for a ride of this nature at a park like MW where all the other rides are free. Ill clarify, I dont have an issue if parks have upchaege stuff, but only if there is a good reason not to have it free. Put it this way, would you think it was stupid if DW decided to levy an extra charge to go on the motocoaster (there are coasters on the travelling circuit) Edited August 31, 2007 by Gazza

[Churros]

Well to be honest, much as I hate to say it - the looney toons characters, like hanna barbera, are getting old. Kids these days watch japanese cartoons and crap about homosexual sea sponges. The days of Bugs and Daffy, Mickey and Minnie, Fred and Barney are long gone. When was the last Bugs program\movie? Space Jam? thats ten years ago. Even the muppets haven't released anything recently. Its been a long time since we saw a good disney cartoon... and let me clarify, when i'm talking Disney, im NOT talking about pixar characters... thats your exception to the rule.

Turn it up! You have dead set lost it haven't you?! I think you have officially just undermined two bodies of people in an effort to make a point. Yeah, Looney Tunes might not be a huge thing these days, and there is quite a bit of evidence to support this. But I have to say, that doesn't mean that you have to have a dig at both homosexuals and spongebob fans in one hit. And before we start having a hack at some of the modern properties, you have to realise that many children these days find as much enjoyment and satisfaction from these modern shows that others gained from the more classic cartoons. Let's consider the idea that the Looney Tunes area is reconceptualised into a Cartoon Network type area, as taronga stated (we are talking hypothetically). What is the worst that can happen? Cartoon Network as a channel devotes a bulk of its time to showing many of the classic WB cartoons, and another bulk of its time to modern WB cartoons, including DC properties such as Justice League, Teen Titans and the like. So how would this honestly affect the feel of the park? Many of the Looney Tunes rides can stay in tact, but the park can create some attractions themed around a more diverse range of cartoons. As for the japanese cartoons, they really only form a small percentage of what children watch these days. Usually they latch on to one of the cartoons at a time and gradually the fads pass.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

^well there was Looney Tunes: Back In Action ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318155/ ) but the fact you couldn't remember that one pretty much validates your point

I knew someone would bring up some obscure one that slipped my mind, but yes, it does prove the point that the popularity of those characters has diminished greatly. I remember a time when 101 Rabbit Tales would air three times a year on channel 9, What's up Doc showed Bugs, and Road Runner, and Daffy... Instead of Animaniacs, or Pinky and the Brain - don't get me wrong, I love Pinky, and the animaniacs are ok, but there was not as much character development or foundation put into the new guys as there was with the old ones, and it was more slapstick, and less genuine humor, because the writers preferred to resort to fart jokes and similar, that to have to come up with very creative storylines episode after episode.

But the admission charge for the Melbourne show is $27, which is less than half of the admission fee to MW.

The admission charge for Melbourne Show is $27 and you have to pay for every ride In my scenario, I referred to MW having little or no charge at the gate (perhaps something to cover shows and street entertainment) and then upcharge everything But to continue the discussion, on average at a show you have street entertainment, performances, animal showing\judging, and then you pay for each ride, showbag etc. So one person's average day at the show: Entry ticket \ parking $35 1 ride on dodgems $6 1 ride on travelling wildmouse coaster $7.50 1 ride on Simulator Ride $6 View stunt show, precision driving team, fireworks - $FREE Lunch - hot dog, chips and a coke $11.50 (using real figures from the Penrith show for that one) Buy Showbags - 4 showbags @ $12 each 4 Drinks through out the day @ $4.50 each 1 Ride on Zipper $5.50 (special price) 1 Ride on Taipan travelling coaster $6 1 Ride on travelling Flume $6 1 Kiddy Ride-On Coaster $4 1 Ride on Ghost Train $6 1 Ride on travelling Free Fall $6 GRAND TOTAL $165.50 Now - one person's average day at Movie World: Entry ticket \ parking $60 1 ride on dodgems $6 1 ride on Superman Escape $FREE 1 ride on Batman Adventure - The Ride 2 $FREE View Police Academy, Street Parade \ Show, Shrek 4d - $FREE Lunch - hot dog, chips and a coke $11.50 (I don't know MW's figures, but its bound to be similar.) Buy On-Ride Photos - 4 photos @ $6.95 each 4 Drinks through out the day @ $4.50 each 1 Ride on Looney Toons Flume Ride $FREE (yes I know its closed currently) 1 Ride on Lethal Weapon $FREE 1 Ride on Wild West Falls $FREE 1 Ride on Road Runner Coaster $FREE 1 Ride on Scooby Doo Spooky Coaster $FREE 1 Ride on Batwing $FREE GRAND TOTAL $123.30

Put it this way, would you think it was stupid if DW decided to levy an extra charge to go on the motocoaster (there are coasters on the travelling circuit)

I know there are, I just named two of them above, but put it this way - would I prefer Dreamworld to go downhill like wonderland did, and not install any new attractions because the money was being funnelled elsewhere into Macquaries bowling alleys for instance? If, to get a new attraction, there was a levy placed on the ride, I don't see it entirely as a bad thing. One thing you guys don't get is I am just as much against upcharge attractions as the next guy, but I look at it from another angle. If Dreamworld was having a bad run, and couldn't afford to put in the coaster for another 10 years unless they levied its patronage - then damn straight I want an upcharge on it so they can build it now, and not ten years from now. Think of the good things - queue lines would definately be shorter.... maybe they could charge more for the front or back seat? that would make the queues there shorter again... Now having said that, Movie World isn't exactly having a bad run, but they have just spent over $20M in the past 24 months solely on new attractions, on top of that you've got maintenance and repair of existing attractions and so on - JUST on the installation of the rides they've spent that much. And before I hear it - yes, Dreamworld have just spent all this money on a new waterpark, and THEN gone and installed a coaster in Dreamworld... Trouble is WWW is a separate charge park and is pretty much going to be self supporting, like WnW. putting an additional levy on something that the public would otherwise be able to use for free ensures that you can install certain things way ahead of the time when it would be needed, or afforded. A perfect example of this is the M7 Motorway, or Cross City Tunnel, both in Sydney. Currently if you travel on the M4 Motorway during peak hour, its generally bumper to bumper. At the moment on the M7 and Cross City Tunnel, theres traffic, but its not bumper to bumper during peak hour. I know this because I drove them all every day up until recently. The reason for this is that the M7 and Cross City Tunnel were built to accomodate tomorrows traffic, not todays, whereas the M4 was built over 10 years ago, and the traffic it was built to take came, and kept coming 5 years ago. My point here is that each of the roads I have mentioned above have a levy on them - it is an otherwise public road, but there is a toll on them - why? to make back the money that they spent on it, to subsidise the cost of building it because they didn't have the money to do it without the private agreements and tolls that they set up.

Turn it up!

Turn what up? Unless you're severely overweight, have red hair, love dressing up as a woman on national television, love yourself so much you can't look in a mirror without trying to kiss it, and are the most irritating sports-related personality on television, who hasn't done so much as a dropkick in over ten years (unless you count the fact he is a dropkick), I wouldn't be saying that... you are only going to alienate yourself further as a tosser.

that doesn't mean that you have to have a dig at both homosexuals and spongebob fans in one hit.

I wasn't having a dig at homosexuals. Some of my very good friends are gay, and I am a tolerant, understanding person. A lot of those friends come to me for help and advice when they are in a tough situation. I WAS having a dig at Spongebob fans. I've watched the show for about 30 seconds, and in that time I was surprised at the waste of airtime. I have no interest in spongebob, and personally it is just as much a waste of space as Ren and Stimpy, Powerpuff Girls

Let's consider the idea that the Looney Tunes area is reconceptualised into a Cartoon Network type area, as taronga stated (we are talking hypothetically). What is the worst that can happen? Cartoon Network as a channel devotes a bulk of its time to showing many of the classic WB cartoons, and another bulk of its time to modern WB cartoons, including DC properties such as Justice League, Teen Titans and the like. So how would this honestly affect the feel of the park? Many of the Looney Tunes rides can stay in tact, but the park can create some attractions themed around a more diverse range of cartoons. As for the japanese cartoons, they really only form a small percentage of what children watch these days. Usually they latch on to one of the cartoons at a time and gradually the fads pass.

If you read my post carefully, you will see that I'm not actually against the changeover. What I was saying is that the classics, realistically, are dead. Kids these days have no interest in them, and prefer to mind-numbing humor that comes out of poorly dubbed japanese cartoons, with oversized eyes and undersized mouths, homosexual sea sponges, and cartoons that use words like "spooty" ? WTF ? I'm not against the changeover, although I will miss it - that area is for the kids, and its better to have what the kids are interested in, than some outdated scenario that only mums and dads will remember nostalgically. But seriously now - Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, George Jetson, Barney Rubble - admittedly, classics of our time. I think the creativity has gone downhill however, when we're talking "angry beaver" and the like. Angry Beaver sounds like the attempts of Roger Myers Senior on The Simpsons when he created Manic Mailman, and Flatulent Fox. It sounds like the first idea that popped into the head of a guy paid to come up with ideas, rather than the life work of a very talented man like Walt Disney. Edited August 31, 2007 by AlexB

[Gazza]

Thing is though, why are we drawing comparisons with shows and theme parks anyway, they are completely different business models.

[Churros]

Turn what up? Unless you're severely overweight, have red hair, love dressing up as a woman on national television, love yourself so much you can't look in a mirror without trying to kiss it, and are the most irritating sports-related personality on television, who hasn't done so much as a dropkick in over ten years (unless you count the fact he is a dropkick), I wouldn't be saying that... you are only going to alienate yourself further as a tosser.

Thank you for the compliment

I wasn't having a dig at homosexuals. Some of my very good friends are gay, and I am a tolerant, understanding person. A lot of those friends come to me for help and advice when they are in a tough situation. I WAS having a dig at Spongebob fans. I've watched the show for about 30 seconds, and in that time I was surprised at the waste of airtime. I have no interest in spongebob, and personally it is just as much a waste of space as Ren and Stimpy, Powerpuff Girls

Oh, thanks for clearing that up for me. For a second there I thought you were using 'homosexual' as an insulting adjective to describe Spongebob. And sorry, I didn't realise you were 'tolerant and understanding'. It is good to see that you pathologise homosexuality to the point that it has to be tolerated or understood. You truly are a king among men. As for Spongebob Squarepants. From the work I am involved in, many children find a great deal of joy engaging with televisions shows such as Spongebob. You may not like it, but there are better ways of passing criticism than to come out claiming he is 'homosexual'. After all, there is no evidence to actually suggest he is either homosexual or heterosexual. Regardless, what should it matter? All I am trying to say is, you could have made your point by simply saying, "I don't believe Spongebob squarepants is a good show because..." After all, you wouldn't want to sound like someone who is 'severely overweight, have red hair, love dressing up as a woman on national television, love yourself so much you can't look in a mirror without trying to kiss it, and are the most irritating sports-related personality on television, who hasn't done so much as a dropkick in over ten years (unless you count the fact he is a dropkick)'

I'm not against the changeover, although I will miss it - that area is for the kids, and its better to have what the kids are interested in, than some outdated scenario that only mums and dads will remember nostalgically. But seriously now - Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, Mickey Mouse, George Jetson, Barney Rubble - admittedly, classics of our time.

Well, I wasn't actually directing that post at anyone in particular, I was just making a statement about the idea of them changing things. Nothing has been one hundred percent confirmed just yet in any case.

[Richard]

That 'obscure' film was a highly publicised big-budget film. Anyone not familiar with it clearly wouldn't be in any position to cite views on the longevity of the Looney Tunes characters. It did flop, but without a doubt that would come down to the overall quality of the production rather than its inclusion of the Looney Tunes characters. I haven't watched Cartoon Network in probably close to a decade so can't comment on what the world of cartoons is like these days, but a quick look at IMDB for Looney Tunes suggests that the franchise is consistently reappearing in new series and TV specials etc. To suggest that kids these days aren't familiar with them to the point where they are not be a financially viable brandname is absurd. When was the last time anyone saw Mickey Mouse in anything of note? To say he's still pretty popular at the Disney parks would be an understatement.

[Gazza]

^Re Homosexual Spongebob, I thought AlexB was making a cultural reference to the fact that there has been controversy that Spongebob is gay, or some silly idea to that effect. Try Googling "Homosexual Spongebob" or look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpongeBob_Squ...%29#Controversy

[Derwan]

Looks like we'll be saying a final goodbye to Loony Tunes at Movieworld. Although these cartoons are still quite popular amongst some of us... erm... "older" adults, it's probably not something today's kids are familiar with. I wonder... will they re-theme the river ride? (Will they tear it down?) Will they re-theme the Road Runner roller-coaster? (Probably not hard to do.) While we're speculating, I think it's a timely reminder that we ARE just a bunch of enthusiasts just speculating. We don't REALLY know what's going to happen. Paying for dodgem cars when Dreamworld has them as part of the admission charge? Unlikely. Just because someone says, "they will definitely be charging" on an Internet forum doesn't make it true. My prediction is that if they have dodgem cars, they won't be an additional charge. (But I could be wrong.) Time will tell.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Richard the fact that it was highly publicised means nothing to its overall outcome - as you said, it flopped. Just because something is heavily advertised, doesnt mean it is popular - take a look at Big Brother (just kidding) But seriously... Waterworld - heavily advertised, however it was considered a flop. Yes Universal has the stunt show, but I think its more that the stunt show couldn't really justify jet skis and boats in a themed stunt show... without something to theme it around. In today's cartoonery, you are more likely to find Tweety Bird on a middle aged womans accessories, than in a 7 year old's schoolbag pencilcase. Take a walk through our theme parks lately. Watch what the kids are wearing - its spongebob, powerpuff girls, Hi-5, Wiggles, Dora the Explorer... and thats only whats on in the next hour on Foxtel. As a matter of fact the only "older" cartoon on Nick, Nick Jr, Disney, Disney Playhouse, Cartoon Network or Boomerang that has a "classic" quality in the next hour is Tom and Jerry. I'm sorry to say but the argument that the Looney Toons has any form of Longevity with todays Kids is ridiculous to say the least. Anyone who hasn't watched any of the cartoon channels on Foxtel in the last ten years wouldn't be able to argue that. Simply because they are aired, it does not mean that they have the popularity that they did. Kids see Bugs in MW, they shake his hand and smile for the camera, but are more interested in Scooby and the Gang, or Shrek... and why not? It's what they grew up with. I think Ian could definitely shed some light on this in regards to which characters are more likely to get mobbed by kids.... rather than adults. I can speak from personal experience at Wonderland that the HB characters were dead. They brought in Shrek, Action Man, and the Marvel characters, and they were mobbed. Fred Flintstone would take a drive through the park in the flintstone mobile, and barely stop, except for the driver to chat to their friends around the park. Its a few years later but the era is the same. Bugs would need the help of Pixar to bring the Loons back to life. The theming works in MW. The rides work well with that theming... But when I took my 8 year old niece on the River ride a year ago, I had to tell her the names of all the characters on the ride, because the only one she knew was Tweety... and thats because her nonna has Tweety sunshades and seat covers in her car, mobile phone covers on her nokia, and a tweety dressing gown and slippers. Facts and figures on a website don't show real life. And I do recall hearing the name of the movie. It never appealed to me, i never saw it, so I did know it existed. The inability to think of it when racking my brain to think of the last looney toons production released only further proved my point, as Gazza said.

[Richard]

The fact that it was highly publicised means one very important thing; if you if you weren't familiar with it, then you probably aren't the one to be making assumptions about the franchise's place in modern culture. It wasn't an obscure film by any stretch, and the fact that you hadn't considered it in this topic (even if you were aware) doesn't go any way to proving your point. I forgot one thing - the funamental flaw in the argument about Cartoon Network's programming is that in recent years they've changed the overall style of Cartoon Network with the introduction of Boomerang. A quick look at its programming for the next 24 hours shows that there's no shortage of classics. The before and after school slots even comprise almost entirely of Looney Tunes shows. Spend 5 minutes looking into it on IMDb or Wikipedia and it becomes very aparent that the franchise is anything but dead with several series produced in the last few years ago. I don't think anyone would honestly think it's the most popular thing in the cartoon world, but their days are anything but numbered. Your entire argument seems to comprise of select examples and situations you've come across personally that to me are hardly representative of the overall market. I have little doubt that market research into brand recognition and familiarity with the classic franchises will yield results not all that significantly different to what it would have when you or I were kids. In my view, the one thing that has contributed to their downfall in recent years far more than anything else - including the present excuses for kid's entertainment they call cartoons - is the major TV channels here realising that there's far more profit to be had from big-budget breakfast shows aimed at adults rather than low-budget variety shows aimed at children.

[Churros]

I think you would find that another contributer of the shift is the introduction of pay television to Australia. Foxtel and Austar became available when I was in my early teens, but for older members of these boards, surely you would recognise the difference between pre-Foxtel and the current diversity in what children can watch. Especially considering that prior to this (at least when I was in Primary School) the offerings in the mornings from the free to air channels was much larger. Today, you will find that many of the prefered cartoons by younger viewers are found on the pay television networks - your Nicks and Cartoon Networks. But what you will discover is that the range of viewing is much larger. And Richard is correct. Cartoon Network as a channel on its own offers a wide range of traditional cartoons that children these days still watch. Looney Tunes are all over Cartoon Network. However, when you ask children what cartoons they are 'in to' it honestly changes from year to year or month to month depending on what the new biggest thing was. And let's not forget that age group also contributes to the diversity in what children watch. When I began my Ed Degree, I was working with younger kids and many of them were into the 'children's' cartoons like the Yu-Gi-Ohs, Digimons, and One Piece. As you move up the year levels beyond year 4 or 5, many of the children spend more time engaging with the 'more mature' cartoons - the Family Guys, Futuramas, and the such. And let's not rule out social and culture demographics associated with these issues also. The entertainment media is far too diverse these days to specify what kids are 'in to', with too many factors to make such general statements. To suggest that the classics are long gone is a bit far fetched also. Two or three years ago people were saying that many of the classic 80's cartoons were dead also. Examples include The Turtles, and Transformers and the like. But take Transformers as a better example. All the franchise required was an effective boost to put itself back on the scope of audiences, whether they be younger or older. That is not to say that the Looney Tunes are not around. But let's be realistic, they are not the most popular figures around at the moment, but you really cannot identify one. As for the discussion for what Movieworld may be doing with the area, or could simply be a freshen up. Has there been any indication that they will be re-theming the entire area? From what I have gathered they have removed the sign and taken down some of the oldest attractions from the area.

[Derwan]

Has there been any indication that they will be re-theming the entire area? From what I have gathered they have removed the sign and taken down some of the oldest attractions from the area.

As per the Annual Pass E-News, "Warner Bros. Movie World will see a new completely re-branded kid’s area including new carousel, rides and retail store." This suggests (to me) a complete re-theme.

[Psycho]

As per the Annual Pass E-News, "Warner Bros. Movie World will see a new completely re-branded kid’s area including new carousel, rides and retail store." This suggests (to me) a complete re-theme.

To me that suggests a re-naming or slight alteration to the concept of the area - not necessarilly a removal of the Looney Tunes characters. To be honest, MW would be mad (or incredibly stupid) to not utilise the characters anymore. While people on here seem to be claiming that kids aren't "into them" these days - they really are cultural icons that are timeless - along with Disney's classic animated characters. For everyone saying that MW should retheme Looney Tunes Village to suit the taste of children today, let me just say this - Does anyone else remember the Pokemon store at MW? Enough said. Edited September 4, 2007 by Psycho

[taronga]

That short lived Pokemon store was just part of a park promotion for the movie, along with its lame walkthrough attraction Pokemon Island Adventure (i think it was in Sound Stage 1 of the studios). It was that same year when Cartoon Network Beach opened at Seaworld.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

For everyone saying that MW should retheme Looney Tunes Village to suit the taste of children today, let me just say this - Does anyone else remember the Pokemon store at MW? Enough said.

I don't believe ANYONE has been saying MW SHOULD retheme it. I'm sure i've said previously that i'm not really for the change, but simply that to keep the popularity with the demographic the area is targeted at, retheming with more popular \ modern characters is a smart move to keep the kiddies interested.

[Psycho]

I don't believe ANYONE has been saying MW SHOULD retheme it. I'm sure i've said previously that i'm not really for the change, but simply that to keep the popularity with the demographic the area is targeted at, retheming with more popular \ modern characters is a smart move to keep the kiddies interested.

Fine, if we're going to split hairs, perhaps I should've said "For anyone that believes these classic characters are dead to children today is severely mistaken and it is not necessary to re-direct the focus of the Looney Tunes Village area of the park towards more contemporary cartoons"...

[rappa]

Just a quick note, Village Roadshow is a wholely Australian Company. There is no longer any American ownership of Movie World... Just looking at that picture of the Dodget Facade, I really hope that is temporary or the photo makes the what looks like vinyl signage look much worse than it is... After all this is the exact kind of theming and finish disney is now UNDOING from DCA.

[Churros]

Well, to tell you the truth, the longer I see it the more likely it is going to be a perminent, or semi-perminent facade. If this is the case, it is kind of a disappointment, but in some respects could suggest that it could only be temporary for this summer, etc. What I can say, that seems promising is that the building being constructed just in front of it has a similar (almost identical) construction style as the Thomstone building, so it will be western themed. I have no idea what it is going to be, but it appears to be a more perminent structure.

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Just to clarify (because I thought I heard something different - but i COULD be wrong) Isn't MW owned by VRTP now? and are they american based? I thought they were more local.

Just a quick note, Village Roadshow is a wholely Australian Company. There is no longer any American ownership of Movie World...

I was pretty sure that was the case, but without being able to research it, I didn't want to say "wholly australian" if that was not entirely the case - that would open a big can of worms... but I was pretty sure it was, hence what i said earlier. Thanks for clearing that up Clint.

........a perminent, or semi-perminent facade ........to be a more perminent structure.

Churros, I'm sorry. Typically one goes unnoticed, but three in one post and i've got to speak up - Would you please check up the community guidelines on spelling, and then check a dictionary. I'm not trying to be mean, but the quality of topical discussion we have here gets let down by silly mistakes in spelling a lot. I'm no perfect angel - my grammar and punctuation goes down the toilet every second post I make, but spelling mistakes - particularly obvious ones like that really do begin to irritate. A good suggestion I can make is to type up your response in Word or something similar, and then use spell-check, before pasting it into the R-C window. I've found that helps my grammar a lot also.

[Gazza]

Or just switch to an actual good browser like Firefox that has spell check built in.

[Churros]

Churros, I'm sorry. Typically one goes unnoticed, but three in one post and i've got to speak up – Would you please check up the community guidelines on spelling, and then check a dictionary. I'm not trying to be mean, but the quality of topical discussion we have here gets let down by silly mistakes in spelling a lot.

Firstly, “i’ve” should have a capital "I", so I am surprised Word didn’t pick that up for you. Secondly, the statement, “Would you please check up the community guidelines on spelling, and then check a dictionary.” is a question, which should denote the use of a question mark to indicate this. Now, I totally respect the reason for these guidelines, and I am not going to question them, but why on earth does everyone have to be the spelling police on these forums? In many cases it is warranted - when comments are made that people have just made no effort to construct a statement. However, it was a simple spelling mistake. I think if you were smart enough you could figure out the point of the post in any case. I could put a whole slab of writing about the redefinition of contemporary literacy practices and reconstruction of what 'grammar' is, but it might be a bit wordy. With regards to me needing to check the guidelines, I wasn't aware that they had changed from the first time I read them. I understand why they are in place so I go through my best attempts to adhere to them. As for three errors, it actually constitutes one error because it is the same word. If you were genuinely adhering to Guideline 1: A friendly and helpful attitude is expected at all times. you would have been understanding enough to recognise that maybe I have an issue with spelling that word and left a polite comment such as, "Oh, by the way, perminent is spelled permanent." rather than going all Scent of a Woman on this forum and 'speaking up' at just the right time. By the way, in case you are not sure, the number one (1) comes before five (5). And just in case you are not sure, here is a counting chart I made for you: Alternatively, you might have accounted for a possible digital divide that exists between the ICT resources you have access to and the ones I have access to and thought that maybe for some reason he just cannot check the spelling of that word, or when he was making the post accessibility to a dictionary was limited. Oh, and by the way, I just looked up, and you can rest assured the sky is not falling. In the interest of upholding the quality of discussion of these forums, consider this my formal apology: Dear Members of Roller-Coaster.com.au Forums, I Churros, officially apologise for bringing down the quality of discussion in these forums by incorrectly spelling the term permanent three times in the one post. I sincerely regret that while these actions cannot be reversed, I will make every attempt to redeem myself in the future by endeavouring to spell every word correctly and use the appropriate grammar of the English language when forming future forum contributions. While this may not have been my only offence, I believe this to be the most severe of offences to this date. Sincerely, Churros.

I'm no perfect angel - my grammar and punctuation goes down the toilet every second post I make, but spelling mistakes - particularly obvious ones like that really do begin to irritate.

I am sorry, but I thought you were tolerant and understanding Now, I will add something meaningful to this discussion. The location where the carrots were previously erected has been concreted. There is no indication what is going in there, but I am assuming something fairly simple or cosmetic.

[Richard]

We do ask that members put some basic effort into the quality of what they're writing, if for no other reason than to improve the likeliness that someone will respond you what you're saying because they can clearly read and understand what you're saying. However, we aren't asking everyone to be perfect, nor have we ever. Everyone's guilty of a misspelling or typo here or there. Who honestly cares if someone misspells permanent as perminent, especially when the rest of their posts are to a very high standard? The point of asking members to give thought to what they're posting is to encourage intelligent discussion above all. We're not out to make everyone submit scholarly reports with every post they make. That said, a built-in spellchecker in your Browser goes a very long way and I'd personally recommend it to everyone. The Google Toolbar has it and a number of other very useful features that I personally can't go without.

[saberon]

In my opinion this whole discussion has gone completely beserk! Everyone, Chill! This discussion was intended to be about the constructions within Warner Bros Movie World, not about spelling and grammar. Focus People!

[ILUV SUPERMAN ESCAPE]

^ I agree.I mean I'm not criticizing people about their spelling because if they're good spellers they're good spellers and if they're not they're not.

[Gazza]

It basically bugs me when people use no effort though, clearly Churros has done nothing wrong, its just one word he didn't know properly. But if it's something like this:

is there a way to go to the big brother hose i seen a sign near the place were the aniamals are if i floow the sign that says big brother were does it lead?

Where it hasn't even been proofread and you have to look at it a couple of times to work out what the words are meant to be and what its trying to say because there is no punctuation then that is annoying. Though one thing that really annoys me though is when people (and I have seen this plenty of times on here) write "I seen" instead of "I saw", its bad enough people use that sort of grammar when speaking, but to type it is complete joke. Next people will be writing stuff like "I aksed a question" because that's how they speak. Edited September 8, 2007 by Gazza