Disney Information Station Logo

Go Back   The DIS Discussion Forums - DISboards.com > Disney Trip Planning Forums > Disney Rumors and News
Find Hotel Specials & DIScounts
 
facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS UpdatesDIS email updates
Register Chat FAQ Tickers Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read





Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 08-16-2002, 11:34 AM   #46
DisneyKidds
The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mouse-ing out his friend!
But in reality...
Member of car "X" - And proud of it!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Beautiful Hudson River Valley
Posts: 4,605

Quote:
DK, with respect to the compilations, you either ignored my last post, or found it so inept it was not fit to be acknowledged. (Don't worry, you wouldn't be the first to do either...).
Matt - neither ignored or inept . I read, I hear what you are saying - I just don't know that I agree.

I don't believe Walts sole motivation for the 'package' pictures and Dumbo was to save the company from bankruptcy. Yeah, he needed to bring in some money at times. After the losses of Pinocchio and Fantasia there were only cash fumes left from the profits of Snow White. Yes, they were indebted to the Bank of America to the tune of $4 mil. That seems to have been par for the course for Disney. But they weren't on the bankruptcy ropes just yet. They weren't desperate at the time.

The way I read it, Walt realized that not every film could be a multimillion dollar production. He knew he needed to scale back his ambitions for some films. He didn't abandon the big budget. When he put out the first compilation Bambi was in production and he was still spending. He just knew that he needed to put out more types of films because it was good for the business, not just a stop gap measure to prevent an impending bankruptcy.

Likewise, Dumbo wasn't just a quick save your a$$ picture. Walt wanted to prove that a feature could be produced on a modest budget in a reasonable amount of time. Walt Disney Studios could not go through life putting out films once every three years, or have three multimillion dollar features in production at once.

Real bankruptcy problems faced the Disneys after the war. The market for their animated features didn't come back quickly and they had made little, if any, money on their war efforts. After the war, with the market for animation slow to come back and TV entering the picture, Walt realized that those threats required him to go back to the full length animated feature - "lick 'em with quality" (too bad current management doesn't think that way) - and Cinderella was it. It wasn't simply the removal of the threat of bankruptcy that made Walt move away from the 'package' pictures.

So, no I didn't ignore you. I thought about what you said but also thought that my last post was too long already so I refrained from discussing your thought - but there you have it.
DisneyKidds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2002, 05:29 PM   #47
DVC-Landbaron
What Would Walt Do?
 
DVC-Landbaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,033

Quote:
I don't think my points are really any more 'debunkable' than the naysayer crowd
SEE!!!

Another debunkable point!!
__________________
"Give the people everything you can give them."
"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

For the best "Disney Education" on the web go to: http://www.july171955.com/

Long live the Pirate!!
DVC-Landbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
|
The DIS
Register to remove

Join Date: 1997
Location: Orlando, FL
Posts: 1,000,000
Old 08-16-2002, 06:17 PM   #48
DVC-Landbaron
What Would Walt Do?
 
DVC-Landbaron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 2,033

Quote:
I'm going to go where no man dares to go now and make a blanket statement that will probably get me banned from the DIS. Walt had it easy!






OK. I was going to just leave it alone. But then I continued reading and I was struck by the thought that you may really believe this tripe!! So, OK!! Let’s run with it a bit!! On guard!!
Quote:
Walt was improving on something very basic and generic (the amusement park)
GENARIC!! The one of a kind, never seen on the face of the planet before, experience that was Disneyland, and you call it ‘generic’!?!? Captain!! Come on!!
Quote:
Walt never would have got funding for his 'pipe dream' today.
So let me get this straight. Back then, when he decided to build his park in the middle of nowhere, and use real crystal for lighting and live steam for his trains, and NO ONE in the industry thought it would make a dime and the ‘competition’ was far in the gutter compared to what he had in mind, he could get the funding. But in today’s climate of Six Flags, Universal, IOA, Sea World, Busch Gardens, he could not. Are you serious!?!?
Quote:
seems he used the synergistic approach as much as Michael
Take that back!!! Them’s fightin’ words!!

Seriously though. Of course he would use synergy!! Every company, heck(!), every individual uses it when it happens. Naturally. In a good fit. They DON’T shove it into every stinking thought they have!! They don’t do something simply for the ‘synergy'. And they don’t reject something because they can’t tie it into something else (with SYNERGY!!)!!
Quote:
Certainly all are unique and well done but would current management get praise if they decide to clone 5 or 6 Soarin' rides with different locales, ques and stories?
BRING IT ON!!! They won’t though!! And you know it. And I know it!! And EVERYONE knows it.
Quote:
Eisner liked quality stage shows and has given them to us (where s the same appreciation?).
When he presents them like Pirates and Haunted Mansion I might consider it, but basically I would prefer a robot over a human being any day of the week!! If I want theater, I’ll go to the Chicago Theater or the Schubert (local venues). We have a great Theater District, professional, semi-professional and armature that would knock your socks off!! My wife and I (even the whole family sometimes) attend all three regularly. However, I have searched high and low and you know what? I can’t find anything like Pirates or Haunted Mansion in Chicago!! Hey!! Maybe that’s the point!!
Quote:
OK, I know a few of you are waiting to rip into this baby so I'll quit
Look!! If you’re going to use a line like this, can I speak to the Pirate? It’s just doesn’t sound as good saying “Paranoid Captain”. It flows a whole bunch better saying “Paranoid Peter Pirate”!!

Anyway, no one wants to “rip” you. At least I don’t. I like the conversation. I don’t feel ripped by Mr. Kidds, Bstanley, Mr. Matt (on the rare disagreement) the Pirate, yourself or even Scoop (well… there have been times with the Sco… anyway)!! I just like to talk. And if you really believe this, it is my duty to show you how very, very wrong you are!!!
Quote:
How many new and exciting theme park attraction ideas can there be? We keep clamoring for a new 'dark ride' but what will it be?
Captain!! May I suggest that you head over to the MK. Proceed to Tomorrowland. There is an attraction there (not for long!) that you need to attend. It is call Carousel of Progress! It shows progress throughout the century as it affects one family. And at each stop, the current family just can’t believe it can get any better! “Where are all the new things going to come from?” they ask. “There’s nothing that can beat what we’ve got!”

I think you have the same syndrome. Thank God Walt didn’t think in those terms or we’d be stuck with carnival rides in Disneyland!!
__________________
"Give the people everything you can give them."
"Disneyland is a work of love. We didn't go into Disneyland just with the idea of making money."

For the best "Disney Education" on the web go to: http://www.july171955.com/

Long live the Pirate!!
DVC-Landbaron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2002, 08:21 PM   #49
Captain Crook
U wanna Iguana?
 
Captain Crook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bonaire, N.A. (IMD)
Posts: 951

OK Landbaron...So you're scared to respond to me, eh?
Quote:
I was struck by the thought that you might really believe this tripe.
Well, you should by now know that I always believe at least something about what I post. I figure that since you're sooooo good and knowing what Walt would do you surely can ascertain the true thoughts of a couple of sea-fearing souls like Peter & me...
Quote:
GENARIC, the one of a kind never seen on the face of the planet before experience that was Disneyland...
Landbaron, I said that what came before Walt's innovative take on the material was the generic...But when you're starting with only vanilla the expansion to 31 flavors was easy for Baskin Robbins...But who expanded beyond 31? I know many new flavors have been produced but it's no longer a big deal. Or take the Snowmobile, when I left the frozen north we still called all snowmobiles Ski-Doo as if that were generic. They were the innovator, who cared about Polaris or Arctic Cat? Huge developments have been made, but they're still just 'Ski-Doo's. When Walt started there were only amusement park rides. Disney changed all that. How could Mike Ritchey (made up) come along and make a name for himself in the theme park history hall of fame along side of Walt? What radical form of innovation could possibly do that? (D) none of the above would be the correct answer...

Funding. Roy had trouble funding DL. The Disney's bet the farm. In today's environment who would bet the farm on a theme park innovation, betting they'll outdo Disney, Universal and all of the locals? (D) none of the above would be the correct answer.

So Landbaron, I will admit that I love talking with you as well...I just wish you could get something right occasionally. I know your heart is in the right place it's just that logic that causes you problems...

__________________
...Peter Pirate's best friend...
Captain Crook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2002, 08:42 PM   #50
raidermatt
Beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggression. The dark side of the Force are they.
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 7,384

The sad part is that Disney now has the resources to truly innovate on the scale of an entire theme park without gambling the entire company. But they choose not to.

AK was a move in that direction, but DCA was a huge step backwards.

Even if they are averse to spending their own money on that large of an idea, they have enough parks already to test new, innovative ideas in without taking the risk of building a new park.

As much as I hate to believe it, the trend has been towards dressed up off the shelf stuff as opposed to true innovation.

(Though I do hold out some hope for Mission:Space. Call it guarded optimism).
__________________
-Matt
raidermatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2002, 08:49 PM   #51
raidermatt
Beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggression. The dark side of the Force are they.
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 7,384

Oh, and I absolutely disagree (with all respect of course, Captain, sir), that there is no room for innovation left in theme park attractions.

In your analogies of ice cream and snowmobiles, you chose two narrow categories. A fair comparison would be to spinners and flume rides, but not to the entire category of theme park attractions.

There is room for different flavors of ice cream, and improved snowmobiles, just as there is room for improvement on spinners and flume rides.

However, there is plenty of room for true innovation in food products and transportation, just as there is room for innovation in theme park attractions, and theme parks themselves.
__________________
-Matt
raidermatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2002, 08:51 PM   #52
Captain Crook
U wanna Iguana?
 
Captain Crook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bonaire, N.A. (IMD)
Posts: 951

But my point is what's truly innovative in the theme park market? Spiderman, Indy, whatever...They're truly great but only innovative to a certain extnet but not innovative enough to 'build a house' around, so to speak...Which is what this whole argument is about. Walt had it easy, like Baskin Robbins and Ski Doo. Innovation from here is much tougher...Any head honcho's job is much tougher following a legend (and particularly a guy without imagination & with ego)...
__________________
...Peter Pirate's best friend...
Captain Crook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2002, 09:50 PM   #53
raidermatt
Beware of the dark side. Anger...fear...aggression. The dark side of the Force are they.
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: CA, USA
Posts: 7,384

The thing about truly innovative ideas is that most of us don't think of them until the truly innovative soul shows them to us.

Before Walt did his wonders with animation, wasn't the general feeling that animation was "max'd out", much as you say the theme park industry is?

And what was the general consensus about amusement parks when Walt built Disneyland?

You see, the only real way I can "debunk" your statement about theme parks was if I had that truly innovative idea that could revolutionize the theme park industry, AND I could convince you it would do just that. But if I had that idea, and could sell it, well, I'd probably be doing something else right now.

All I can do is provide examples of how so often innovation has been deemed not possible, or not practical. And how time and time again, somebody has come along to prove everyone wrong.

Disney has (or at least had) the creative talent to come-up with these truly innovative ideas. Maybe nobody is around who can be "the Man", like Walt, but collectively, the talent exists.

And honestly, they wouldn't really have to come-up with an all new idea for a radically different kind of park. If they could just do what you describe, take the small steps with attractions like Indy, Spiderman and Soarin', AND combine that with quality AND THE SHOW, the detractors would be few and far between.

For if that kind of environment existed, the current parks would forge ahead and continue to evolve, just as Walt envisioned DL would. And every once in awhile, maybe every 10 years, or maybe 20, a grand innovation would spring out of this environment, and surprise us all.

Walt laid the groundwork for that kind of environment. His job was much more difficult than current mgmt, who really only had to nurture that environment.
__________________
-Matt
raidermatt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2002, 01:55 AM   #54
Another Voice
Charter Member of The Element
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 3,310

“Walt had it easy because you can’t be innovative today!!!”

I’ll put that thought right in between the guy who said the Patent Office should be shut down because everything useful had already been invented (he said in about 1890) and the Hollywood suit that said “George – no wants science fiction with talking robots and laser swords, it ain’t ever going to sell tickets”.

Ya, Walt bet the farm on each of his projects and had the talent and determination to make sure the winners far outweighed the losers. Eisner doesn’t have the talent or the determination – and we’re supposed to think he’s courageous for producing lowest-common denominator dreck?

As for truly innovative in theme parks – gee, Sea World seems to have done alright with Discovery Cove and you should have seen some of the concepts for Animal Kingdom, Port Disney and WestCOT. Or even some of the concepts for the super water park Disney had thought about (don't worry, the Japanese my still build it).

The hard part isn’t coming up with innovative ideas – it’s finding someone with the courage to actually get them built.
Another Voice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2002, 07:04 AM   #55
Captain Crook
U wanna Iguana?
 
Captain Crook's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bonaire, N.A. (IMD)
Posts: 951

raidermatt, you hit the point I was hoping to elicit...We cannot ever predict the when the truly innovative will arrive. It always seems that we have it all until that point. That being said do the truly innovative ideas generally come on top of a previously innovative idea? Is it reasonable to think that something 'mind blowing' will be added to the theme park venue? I would certainly guess no...Not as we know it.

Voice, I never said anything good about Eisner, now did I. In fact I specifically said he lacked imagination & had a big ego & therefore couldn't be counted on in this arena. But did you seriously offer Discovery Cove as innovation? We've been swimming with this sea-life for years here in the keys...None of this was new...It's just packaged better and more complete. Perhaps the others you mentioned would have been innovative, but again, to what degree?

The other salient point is that I'm sure Walt wasn't trying to be innovative, he just was. But I stand by my original thought that innovation is most likely to be bourne where it is least expected. I believe we have an "expectation" in the theme park arena that will pretty much preclude any real innovation...
__________________
...Peter Pirate's best friend...
Captain Crook is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2002, 03:04 PM   #56
SnackyStacky
Disney Addict
S2+1

Proud new daddy to his own little princess!
 
SnackyStacky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 7,001

Quote:
Originally posted by DisneyKidds
Yes, the original (I will use that instead of 'deluxe') hotels were a value. I think they still are today - given what you get for your dollar.
WHAT?!?!

If you have the planning video, check out the brochure that has a chart listing each resort and what amenities each one offers.

When I was looking to book a room for my September trip, I had a budget of about $75 - $80/night, including taxes. I did my research. POR and Courtyard Marriott in DTD were ABOUT the same price. $87.69/night at the Marriott, $84/night at POR. Sounds like a good bargain. Until you look at what the resort offers. EVERYTHING that is offered in terms of amenities in a standard view room at the Animal Kingdom Lodge is offered at the Courtyard Marriott, where only a fraction of that can be had at POR.

I completely understand where Landbaron is coming from, I could just NEVER verbalize it the way Landbaron does.

Disney soaks you for every penny you've got. If you want more magic, you're gonna pay! Especially with their "views". Less parking lot and more animals at AKL is going to cost you!!!!

For me personally, it is obnoxious and highly offensive the way Disney has their resorts setup.
SnackyStacky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2002, 03:31 AM   #57
DisneyKidds
The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mouse-ing out his friend!
But in reality...
Member of car "X" - And proud of it!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Beautiful Hudson River Valley
Posts: 4,605

Quote:
WHAT?!?!
Quote:
EVERYTHING that is offered in terms of amenities in a standard view room at the Animal Kingdom Lodge is offered at the Courtyard Marriott, where only a fraction of that can be had at POR.
Mr. Snacky - have you stayed at both of these resorts? I have and for the same price (POR is actually less in your example) I'll take POR 10 out of 10 times, hands down. The courtyard is a nice hotel, don't get me wrong. However, it pales in comparison to POR (or any of the moderates) when it comes to the overall experience. Funny thing about charts and lists - they often fail to tell the whole story. Been a while since I have looked at the planning video, but I'd be curious to take a closer look at those lists. Maybe you could post them. However, for the life of me I can't think of a significant 'amenity' that we received at the CY that was lacking in POR, CBR, CSR - at least anything of value or convenience.

Quote:
Disney soaks you for every penny you've got. If you want more magic, you're gonna pay! Especially with their "views". Less parking lot and more animals at AKL is going to cost you!!!!
More to my point though - I couldn't disagree more. What are you going to pay for that Magic? Forget rack and look at rates comparable to what you listed above, realistically for the GF you shell out (including tax)$229, Poly and CR about $200, YC/BC/BW about $200, and WL/AKL about $170 or less (yes, AKL savannah view will be more - but you have a giraffe right outside your window for $200 - can you say WOW!). Just because you are trying to stick to $75 a night doesn't mean these hotels are not great values.

Case in point. We just returned from Cape May, NJ. For an EXTREMELY basic room across the street from the beach, with no amenities and ants in the bathroom, we paid $229 a night. Other hotels (they are really motels) with a parking lot view go for more. There are some that are less - but for good reason. The Seaview Marriott, a rather lovely resort that is comparable to say the GF runs about the same as the GF. We are going up to Cape Cod next weekend - the Courtyard in Hyannis - and the room goes for about the same as the GF. I defy the bunko squad to find any resort destination that has a hotel like the GF (or any hotel - moderates included) that is any cheaper than the Disney hotels.

Disney does not soak you. OK, rack rates if you pay them can be quite high. However, if you do have to pay them it is a supply and demand issue - not the fleecing of the WDW public.

You make Baronesque use of !!!!! regarding AKL savannah view. What do you think would be a reasonable charge for a nice sized room in an incredibly themed resort with lots of amenities and a giraffe right off your balcony? If you say $87.69 a night you better have your head examined - or go spend that night at the CY and tell me what you think. Oh, I see you did spend time at the CY - perhaps you should give a Disney deluxe (comparable amenities as you point out) a try to get a frame of reference for comparison. Admitted, there are times we have stayed at the CY as opposed to the GF because we didn't want to spend the $200+ a night. But that is only reflective of my wallet and not the value you receive for that $200+.

BTW - where is that bunko squad? That essay of those last posts of mine and not one debunking?

Last edited by DisneyKidds; 08-18-2002 at 03:45 AM.
DisneyKidds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2002, 08:22 AM   #58
SnackyStacky
Disney Addict
S2+1

Proud new daddy to his own little princess!
 
SnackyStacky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 7,001

Quote:
Mr. Snacky
Please! Call me Snacky!

Quote:
Mr. Snacky - have you stayed at both of these resorts?
I haven't. And with good reason. The "experience" as you call it, is not worth that to me! If Disney can charge as low as $79 for a "value" room (god that term leaves a bad taste in my mouth), there is no reason that animals should be over $200 a night. The codes and discounts are horse puckey in my opinion, because the DIS represents a VERY small portion of the Disney-going public. How many times have we seen posts of "I paid $x, but that was before I found out about the DIS!"

I will respond in greater detail later. I have to get back to work!
SnackyStacky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2002, 09:12 AM   #59
DisneyKidds
The TF thanks DisneyKidds for mouse-ing out his friend!
But in reality...
Member of car "X" - And proud of it!!
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Beautiful Hudson River Valley
Posts: 4,605

Snacky - I look forward to your further reply (and the J-E-T-S, Jets, Jets, Jets beating the Bills twice this year).

When you return I ask you to consider......

Quote:
If Disney can charge as low as $79 for a "value" room (god that term leaves a bad taste in my mouth), there is no reason that animals should be over $200 a night.
......why on earth not? Again I ask - have you actually seen the All Stars and the AKL? Please - go look if you haven't. I assure you, if you spend any time at your resort there is a world of difference in the 'experience', as well as the hotels themselves. Even our good friend Baron will give you that - the original (read: 'deluxe') resort vacation experience that is. I guess Baron is with you in thinking that the AKL should only cost $99. Of course, Baron probably doesn't approve of AKL - but it is probably harder to find a better Show when it comes to a hotel. An actual savannah as part of a resort, with wild animals from across the world right outside your door. Rather unique if you ask me, innovative in the hotel world - something Mr. Disney might have thought of. Quality, safety, courtesy, show, efficiency - it has it all (and that isn't even my favorite WDW resort!) Again, not everyone wants to pay for it - but that doesn't make it a bad value or a soaking.

See you soon .
DisneyKidds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2002, 09:25 AM   #60
SnackyStacky
Disney Addict
S2+1

Proud new daddy to his own little princess!
 
SnackyStacky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Buffalo, NY
Posts: 7,001

Quote:
Just because you are trying to stick to $75 a night doesn't mean these hotels are not great values.
And here is where I couldn't disagree more. I don't have that pamphlet in front of me, but I will post it when I get home. The original subject of this post was "maintaining the Walt standard". And from a man who didn't want to charge admission to the park at all to enjoy the atmosphere, the company that bears his name certainly has no problem charging for atmosphere.



Quote:
(yes, AKL savannah view will be more - but you have a giraffe right outside your window for $200 - can you say WOW!).
Well, you have a point. I can understand the costs of keeping these animals is immense. So why is that the Animal Kingdom Lodge is the cheapest of all the "deluxe" resorts? Shouldn't it be more? Why is the Grand Floridian the most expensive? Forget the Animal Kingdom Lodge for a moment and look at the moderates. A "standard" view (meaning you can either end up with some lovely gardens, or a parking lot) is less than a room with a "water" view. Why does it cost more to look at water? Is the water a wow factor? And what about the people who decide they want the water enough to pay more for it, and end up looking at the corner of a pond, and more land than water.

Perhaps my standards are just different from everybody else's, but a hotel (or resort, as Disney likes to call them) is for sleeping.

Quote:
Case in point. We just returned from Cape May, NJ. For an EXTREMELY basic room across the street from the beach, with no amenities and ants in the bathroom, we paid $229 a night. Other hotels (they are really motels) with a parking lot view go for more. There are some that are less - but for good reason.
Once again, if the question arises of maintaining the Walt standard, this was not his standard. His standard was to give everybody an equal chance.

Quote:
perhaps you should give a Disney deluxe (comparable amenities as you point out) a try to get a frame of reference for comparison.
Why? I actually had a room reserved at BWI. For $193.14 including tax. I'm sorry. Neither magic, nor experience to me is not worth $165.39. In that statement alone, would Walt have EVER put WORTH on the "magic"? Actually, I'm paying $76.59 for the CY on the weekend, as $25 is only good for Monday-Thursday stays, but even with that rate, I'm still saving $116.55, and again, neither the magic, nor the experience is worth that much. Perhaps you'd say I could stay at an All-Stars for that much. Well, yes I could. And get limited pizza delivery. VALUE?!

Quote:
You make Baronesque use of !!!!! regarding AKL savannah view. What do you think would be a reasonable charge for a nice sized room in an incredibly themed resort with lots of amenities and a giraffe right off your balcony? If you say $87.69 a night you better have your head examined
I'm assuming the head-examination comment was in good taste. Perhaps I would pay more for animals, but for ANY of the other deluxes, I won't pay it. No themeing, experience or magic is worth the exorbitant prices that Disney charges, even with discount codes.

EDIT: My final thought is that Disney charges the prices they do because people are willing to pay them. I am not. Both because I simply cannot afford them, and because I find it offensive that Disney limits the amentites, not to mention the magic based on what I can afford. I have not stayed in a Disney resort, but I have seen them. And nobody can tell me that the themeing, or if you will, the "magic" is not better at a deluxe than at the All Stars, which are basically glorified Motel 6s. That is absolutely ridiculous and nowhere NEAR matining the Walt standard.

Last edited by SnackyStacky; 08-18-2002 at 09:53 AM.
SnackyStacky is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

facebooktwitterpinterestgoogle plusyoutubeDIS Updates
GET OUR DIS UPDATES DELIVERED BY EMAIL



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:15 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Copyright © 1997-2014, Werner Technologies, LLC. All Rights Reserved.