imbordisux

B&M = Good Intamin = Bad There's your "A".

I thought "Hersheypark" was slightly overrated when I went a few months ago (crowded walkways, several "ok" coasters), but it was still a lot of fun. "Storm Runner" is f'ing awesome, though.

What about the first "Bubble Bobble"? Oh, and "Spy Hunter".

If a coaster can't fall at 90*, though, how does Intamin do it with their Top Hats? TTD doesn't fall at 90 degrees? It would seem awfully dangerous if it were truly free-falling from 400 feet in the air.

I like SFNE's "Cyclone"...

Check this thing out: http://www.rcdb.com/id3050.htm

I'm a pretty damn liberal Dem - I can only really think of one or two big issues I disagree with the Democratic stance on.

MARIO BROS.!!!

Ok, I'm pretty good when it comes to identifying sarcasm in text, but... this time... I really can't tell if you're joking or not. Also, I'm relatively small (roughly 5'5, 160), but those "big boy" seats are my friend, too; if anyone here is small, give them a try, you'll get better air.

Found this on RCDB: http://www.rcdb.com/id2907.htm From the description: This shuttle loop does not use an electric motor to lift the car up the hill. It is lifted up the hill by "human" power. So, uh, what exactly does that mean? Are there, like, foot-pedals or something? How do these work? Also, are there any other "human-powered" coasters out there?

I've only ridden "Hydra", "Batman: The Dark Knight", and "Medusa" at SFGAdv; I think "Medusa" is the all-around best of those three, though I personally prefer the awesome hang-time of "Hydra".

Actually, I wrote the entire thing while at work. I'm actually supposed to be working now, as a matter of fact. You know that "Kruger" company that George Costanza worked for? How nobody - not the employees, not the boss, NOBODY - gave a crap about the company? Yeah, it's like that here. Tell "hubbie" to read it, see what he thinks.

So... what does everybody think of my work? http://realwrestlecrap.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=WWE&action=display&thread=1126903056

I dunno, I can think of a few things that do more damage: bombs, toxic gas, two planes being flown into a building...

You always hear tons of complaints about the people who visit SFMM and SFGAdv, but which park has the absolute WORST customers? I haven't been to enough parks - especially "big" parks - to make a call, but I was just wondering what everybody thought.

What's the difference whether violent crime is committed with a gun or not? The crime is the problem, not the means of committing said crimes.

Oh, I agree, if we could find some magical way to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals (or, in an even more radical idea, keep people from becoming criminals in the first place), it'd be a wonderful thing - however, it's unrealistic, so you have to go with the "next best" option. Oh, and found my old "compilation" on the wayback machine: http://web.archive.org/web/20040628154737/http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/board/thread/2988799?d=2988799 And if anyone's wondering, I hate Ann Coulter, too. And Rush. And Franken. And O'Reilly. Pretty much any political pundit not named "Bill Maher".

I didn't want to get into a discussion about Michael Moore himself (I was arguably his biggest critic on the BFC IMDB-board a few years ago), but I guess I'll just mention that, yes, Moore takes a LOT of liberties with the truth, as well as interpolation and extrapolation. This was something I discovered after seeing BFC - prior to that, I had no idea who he was, nor did I have any built-in bias towards him. After seeing that film, though, and not agreeing with some of his conclusions (Dick Clark is responsible for Kayla's death?), I started to discover more and more about him. I mean, the KKK and the NRA were in cahoots??? The NRA was founded by Union officers - the very people that fought to free slaves! Hell, they GAVE guns TO black people back then! I actually wrote the majority of this: http://www.slimindustries.com/~bowling/bowlingforcolumbine/wackoattacko.htm I'm not credited (I posted it on the IMDB boards, and then sent it to him), but if you e-mail him, he'll inform you.

Ok, before I make this post, I have to clarify that I am a liberal democrat, and I do not own - or plan to ever own - a gun. Hell, I've never actually TOUCHED a gun. Now, with that out of the way, I am firmly AGAINST gun-control, and I'll explain why: I used to fully support gun-control, simply because I, like many others, think of guns as dangerous weapons (which they are), and simply thought that, if they were outlawed, they wouldn't be available to do such large damage. How wrong I was. After seeing "Bowling for Columbine", I began researching the subject of guns and gun-control. After looking at source after source, study after study, I came away with three basic "conclusions": 1) The saying "When X is outlawed, only outlaws will have X" is true. 2) More citizens are saved by guns than hurt by them. 3) Every time gun-control has been instituted, gun crime went UP. Now, this was about three years ago that I researched this stuff, so I apologize that I don't remember many specifics; I can't recall the exact facts and figures, so I hope you understand that I'll be speaking in generalizations. Anyway, the first conclusion is self-explanatory: simply making something illegal does not make it disappear. Cocaine is illegal in the U.S., but it's easily available. Drinking alcohol while under the legal age is quite common. There is plenty of child-porn on the web. Oh, and murder, rape, and robbery are all illegal, too, but we still have prisons full of people who commit those very acts. Making something against the law doesn't work on people who plan on breaking the law, anyway. Same thing with guns. The majority of gun-crime is actually done with illegally-obtained guns - the people using these guns aren't going to a store, waiting for their background-check to clear; no, they buy them from the black-market, or steal them from some other place. If I have a shady background, I'm not gonna authorize a background-search, ya know? Stricter gun-laws won't help with the black-market, nor will outlawing guns completely. The second thing I found was that, despite the high numbers you hear about the amount of people killed by guns in the US each year (and they ARE disgustingly high), what you don't hear nearly as much about is the amount of people who used a gun to protect themselves. Now, I don't remember the exact number, but it was something like FOUR TIMES as many citizens use their legally-owned gun to keep from being raped, murdered, assaulted, robbed, etc. Many times, the innocent party didn't even kill the person, and in some cases, didn't even shoot the person; merely flashing the gun was enough. Tying the two previous "entries" together was the almost mind-blowing finding that every time gun-control has been instituted, gun-crime went UP. I couldn't believe it when I realized it... I mean, surely, if you outlaw guns, gun-crime MUST go down, right? Nope. What basically happens is that criminals get ahold of a gun through some illegal means, and then, realizing that the average law-abiding citizens no longer have access to a weapon of equal power, know that they now have an advantage. Let's say I'm a burglar - am I gonna go to the neighborhood where there's a good chance that many of the home-owners own powerful weaponry, or to the neighborhood where there's a good chance that most of them don't? I can't think of my old "list of places where gun-control failed", but I'll give a quick example: Washington D.C. introduced gun-control a few years ago, and within one year, gun-crime increased almost 400%. Think about that. Now, I know that there are many countries that have much fewer gun-related deaths that also have gun-control laws, but that doesn't actually disprove this phenomenon: yes, they have gun-control, and, yes, they have fewer gun-deaths, but unless they had MORE gun-deaths before the gun-control was instituted, OR if they could prove that eliminating gun-control would cause a decrease, rather than an increase, in gun-deaths, then the effect of their gun-control laws cannot be adequately measured. To them I say "Look at Switzerland" - in Switzerland, when a man reaches a certain age (19?), they are given a gun by the government, and they have one of the lowest gun-crime rates in the world. Anyway, the whole topic is very interesting - gun-control leads to higher gun-crime rates, and I am against gun-control specifically because I don't like guns. How odd.

I am a huge wrestling-dork. HUGE. I spend most of my day thinking and writing about wrestling. I used to be a pretty big name on several wrestling message-boards, and, while I am no longer on many of them (I prefer smaller boards with a handful of members), I still talk and write about it constantly. One of my favorite things to do when I have some free-time is armchair-book several months' worth of shows. Below is a link to my latest piece, which covers the next EIGHT MONTHS worth of shows (from present until next year's roster-draft): http://realwrestlecrap.proboards39.com/index.cgi?board=WWE&action=display&thread=1126903056 Figured I'd see if there were any wrestling fans here, and I'm always looking for feedback. Thanks, - Stu

I always forget about this coaster, but I definitely think it's #1 on my "coasters I'm dying to ride" list. "X" is #2 - even if the ride experience isn't all that great, I'm very into the technology and uniqueness of them.

? I'd love to see that - anyone have a pic, or know one that has that type of seat?

Oh, I didn't mean that all wooden coasters would end-up being exactly alike - I just meant that, by eliminating a lot of the things that aren't on Intamin P&Ps, then you would be left with those few elements and features, only in a different order. For instance, I know a lot of people feel that B&M is losing their luster, and that many of their rides feel very similar; all the loops feel the same, all the immelmans feel the same, the negative-Gs on their hypers feel the same, etc., it's just that they're in a different order. I myself don't think it's quite that bad, but I can definitely understand these grievances. This is where I give Intamin credit - they really seem to come-out with completely unique lay-outs with unique, odd-feeling inversions ("flying snake dive"), with unusual transitions and a general out-of-control feeling that many B&Ms lack. THAT'S what I meant when I said many of them would feel the same: that while each lay-out would be unique, the sensations would be similar, as wooden coasters seem to have more "variables" as it pertains to rides, as even woodies that are almost identical can feel completely different, especially if they were built/designed by different companies, and, thus, accelerate faster, or handle differently in different weather, etc. If those two similar-*looking* coasters are now re-built by the same company using the same technology, they'll likely FEEL almost identical, too. It's not a case of "'Batman: The Ride' vs. 'Raptor'" then, but more like two "B:TR"s. That's all I meant.

Cuz we're coaster-nerds.

There's really no reason WHY it couldn't have a cable-lift, as the catch-car mechanism works much like a normal chain-lift - if the catch only works in one direction, then there's no reason that it couldn't engage even if the car is moving. Let's say the train rolls out of the station as normal; well, it's not gonna make it up the lift hill with such little momentum, so it'll just come to a stop naturally when it gets to the lift-hill, and, assuming that the sled is already at the bottom of the hill (since it'll come right back down after taking the train to the top), it can just engage that way. No holding break needed, as the train would stop naturally. I'm pretty sure the ONLY problem with this scenario is that there would need to be a straight-section BEFORE the lift-hill, because the sled would have to engage the train at least half-way back, since at least half of the train would have to make it over the apex to pull the rest of the train over; this is where chain- and cable-lifts differ, as chain-lifts grab on to EACH car, so that, even after the first train crests the lift, the chain continues to push more cars over until the front-half of the train is heavy enough to pull the rest, whereas cable lifts (so far) only grab onto one car, and, since the car it grabs onto would have to be at least half-way through, then there would have to be a straight-section of track prior to the lift-hill that is at least as long as the front half of the train, unless they could get the sled to navigate the track. I assume this is why many cable-lifts start right out of the station - because there's really no reason to have a little section of plain, boring, straight track before the lift-hill. All that said, I'm relatively sure this one won't - it's unnecessarily complicated. Plus, I love chain-lifts - that "click click, click click, click click" is awesome.