Any Reformed FP- Uber Users Who Have Embraced FP+ ?

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Not trying to stir this up again. But if Lisa followed "Did not try TSMM" with "could have at least twice". Then how do you explain someone knowing for sure if they could've riden that attraction multiple times if they weren't physically at the attraction to observe the line in the first place? Meaning she would've had to be physically experiencing TSMM to know what the wait was like.

Don't worry about it. Folks will read in context when it suits them and won't when it doesn't.

Lisa will just make sure she is crystal clear in future postings.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

What is RD?

Rope drop

 

[Disneylover99]

If you are stacking all your rides 9, 10, & 11 which we sometime do you are riding SOMETHING between 9-10 on FP+ which never happened before.

Only if you arrive between 9-10am.

Like I've said before, there are people who have made these reservations and do not actually make it to the park until later in the morning, thus missing their first and sometimes their second FP of the day.

 

[Shaden]

Not trying to stir this up again. But if Lisa followed "Did not try TSMM" with "could have at least twice". Then how do you explain someone knowing for sure if they could've riden that attraction multiple times if they weren't physically at the attraction to observe the line in the first place? Meaning she would've had to be physically experiencing TSMM to know what the wait was like.

Don't worry about it. Folks will read in context when it suits them and won't when it doesn't.

Lisa will just make sure she is crystal clear in future postings.

Actually, Smith Smith is creating context around what you actually said.

You should probably learn what "context" means.

If you had said, "we HAD FPs for TSMM but decided not to use them" context.

If you had said "we were at the ride, and could have jumped on" or "We found availability while standing at the kiosk, but didn't book TSMM" context.

Without such statements, you are just claiming, without any supportive context that you "could have" ridden TSMM. That could refer to any number of things related or not related to FP+, or it could have just been an unsubstantiated claim.

Seriously, constructing meaningful and clear statements in English is not that difficult.

 

[SmithSmith]

Actually, Smith Smith is creating context around what you actually said.

You should probably learn what "context" means.

If you had said, "we HAD FPs for TSMM but decided not to use them" context.

If you had said "we were at the ride, and could have jumped on" or "We found availability while standing at the kiosk, but didn't book TSMM" context.

Without such statements, you are just claiming, without any supportive context that you "could have" ridden TSMM. That could refer to any number of things related or not related to FP+, or it could have just been an unsubstantiated claim.

Seriously, constructing meaningful and clear statements in English is not that difficult.

I wasn't CREATING context. The context was already there. Never mind that it was a conversation about "if multiple rides are possible under FP+".

Lisa said "could've rode TSMM twice". I was asking you how you explain how she could've known that she could ride TSMM twice if she didn't even ride once. She obviously had to be at the attraction, gone through the line and ridden it to know she could've gone twice. Therefore, she obviously experienced the attraction once.

 

[Shaden]

I wasn't CREATING context. The context was already there. Never mind that it was a conversation about "if multiple rides are possible under FP+".

Lisa said "could've rode TSMM twice". I was asking you how you explain how she could've known that she could ride TSMM twice if she didn't even ride once. She obviously had to be at the attraction, gone through the line and ridden it to know she could've gone twice. Therefore, she obviously experienced the attraction once.

Again, you should probably look up the definition of context.

Creating context: Making up details not provided in the original account without sufficient original details from which to draw such inference. That's exactly what you are doing.

"She Obviously had to be at the attraction" As I noted, this is not the case, in fact she said she didn't try TSMM but could have ridden it twice if not for other plans. What exactly does that mean I noted a few equally possible options

She might have been at the attraction and decided it wasn't worth the wait.

Might have been at a Kiosk twice and had the opportunity to book FPs for it.

Might have ridden it once, and had a short SB and could have ridden it a second (though I wouldn't understand the "we didn't try TSMM due to other plans" reference in that case)

She might have looked online while in MK and seen a low SB time and thought "hey we could head over to TSMM right now"

She might had FPs booked but decided to skip them for their other plans.

She might have decided not to head to RD at HS and instead go to breakfast plans.

Or, she might have just thought that if they wanted to they could have ridden it twice, because that's what she thought. No support or evidence.



There are countless reasons why she might have actually been able to, or thought she was able to ride TSMM twice, there is nothing "obvious" about her statement, which means you are creating context to suit your reading of it. Why not ask the poster "were you there ?", "Could you clarify?", "How do you know?" The only thing we got was "Did not try TSMM due to other plans. Could have at least 2x if not for other plans"

Could have.... ridden it ? Tried to FP it ? Tried to SB it? We don't even know that.

So yea, you're making up context.

 

[SmithSmith]

May I please add this question to OP's?

Are you getting to reride favorites?
Our superusing family likes Soarin x 3, TSMM x 3 and EE x 3.

Anyone pulling that off? Thinking about May...

This is the question that Lisa was answering.
The only question being asked was about multiple rides.
The only answer given was about multiple rides.
That is context.
Plain and simple.
I am not creating anything.

Again, you should probably look up the definition of context.

Creating context: Making up details not provided in the original account without sufficient original details from which to draw such inference. That's exactly what you are doing.

"She Obviously had to be at the attraction" As I noted, this is not the case, in fact she said she didn't try TSMM but could have ridden it twice if not for other plans. What exactly does that mean I noted a few equally possible options

She might have been at the attraction and decided it wasn't worth the wait.

Might have been at a Kiosk twice and had the opportunity to book FPs for it.

Might have ridden it once, and had a short SB and could have ridden it a second (though I wouldn't understand the "we didn't try TSMM due to other plans" reference in that case)

She might have looked online while in MK and seen a low SB time and thought "hey we could head over to TSMM right now"

She might had FPs booked but decided to skip them for their other plans.

She might have decided not to head to RD at HS and instead go to breakfast plans.

Or, she might have just thought that if they wanted to they could have ridden it twice, because that's what she thought. No support or evidence.



There are countless reasons why she might have actually been able to, or thought she was able to ride TSMM twice, there is nothing "obvious" about her statement, which means you are creating context to suit your reading of it. Why not ask the poster "were you there ?", "Could you clarify?", "How do you know?" The only thing we got was "Did not try TSMM due to other plans. Could have at least 2x if not for other plans"

Could have.... ridden it ? Tried to FP it ? Tried to SB it? We don't even know that.

So yea, you're making up context.

 

[Shaden]

This is the question that Lisa was answering.
The only question being asked was about multiple rides.
The only answer given was about multiple rides.
That is context.
Plain and simple.
I am not creating anything.

You really don't understand the English language and how it works.

When you say "she obviously had to ride it once", you are creating context.

She said nothing which indicates WHY she felt she could have ridden TSMM twice ... nothing ... at ... all.

She wasn't "Obviously there"

She didn't "Obviously ride it once"


There are any number of reasons and situations where she could have thought she could have, or actually could have, ridden TSMM twice.

Note the "We didn't TRY TSMM" ...

Didn't even Try it ... didn't try to ride it twice, or once, or to FP it, or to SB it ... or ???

She didn't write anything about it. You are providing the context.

I can see the reasoning of your post, and where you are drawing it from. I can follow your logic, but it isn't sound or grounded in what she actually wrote.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

This is the question that Lisa was answering.
The only question being asked was about multiple rides.
The only answer given was about multiple rides.
That is context.
Plain and simple.
I am not creating anything.

Thank you!

Again, you should probably look up the definition of context.

Creating context: Making up details not provided in the original account without sufficient original details from which to draw such inference. That's exactly what you are doing.

"She Obviously had to be at the attraction" As I noted, this is not the case, in fact she said she didn't try TSMM but could have ridden it twice if not for other plans. What exactly does that mean I noted a few equally possible options

She might have been at the attraction and decided it wasn't worth the wait.

Might have been at a Kiosk twice and had the opportunity to book FPs for it.

Might have ridden it once, and had a short SB and could have ridden it a second (though I wouldn't understand the "we didn't try TSMM due to other plans" reference in that case)

She might have looked online while in MK and seen a low SB time and thought "hey we could head over to TSMM right now"

She might had FPs booked but decided to skip them for their other plans.

She might have decided not to head to RD at HS and instead go to breakfast plans.

Or, she might have just thought that if they wanted to they could have ridden it twice, because that's what she thought. No support or evidence.



There are countless reasons why she might have actually been able to, or thought she was able to ride TSMM twice, there is nothing "obvious" about her statement, which means you are creating context to suit your reading of it. Why not ask the poster "were you there ?", "Could you clarify?", "How do you know?" The only thing we got was "Did not try TSMM due to other plans. Could have at least 2x if not for other plans"

Could have.... ridden it ? Tried to FP it ? Tried to SB it? We don't even know that.

So yea, you're making up context.

So if someone asked what color the sky was and someone answered blue, context would indicate they are talking about the sky. And you would insist they could have been talking about anything because lots of things are blue. Except you would be wrong because a specific question was asked and that is the appropriate context.


A question was asked and answered about multiple rides. I wasn't talking about blueberries.

But it is funny that you are dedicating so much bandwidth for this.

But I already agreed to be crystal clear on the future. The horse is dead. Be like Elsa and let it go.

 

[Shaden]

So if someone asked what color the sky was and someone answered blue, context would indicate they are talking about the sky. And you would insist they could have been talking about anything because lots of things are blue. Except you would be wrong because a specific question was asked and that is the appropriate context.


A question was asked and answered about multiple rides. I wasn't talking about blueberries.

But it is funny that you are dedicating so much bandwidth for this.

But I already agreed to be crystal clear on the future. The horse is dead. Be like Elsa and let it go.

You didn't respond to the question with clarity, you also said

"Soarin' did not try as we hit the park after 12 noon the first time and not until near 4 the second day."

Does that mean you didn't try to ride it more than once, that you rode it once, that you headed over and saw the line and decided not to bother, that you went to the kiosk and didn't even look up Soarin, that you had FPs for it but then just left afterwards and didn't check on the SB line or for more FPs ?

It could mean any number of things.

There is no reason to think any of them, to say "She obviously rode Soarin and saw that she couldn't ride it again" is creating context, adding and event or detail to the environment of the original statement without sufficient evidence or support.

Really basic concept.

 

[SmithSmith]

You really don't understand the English language and how it works.

When you say "she obviously had to ride it once", you are creating context.

She said nothing which indicates WHY she felt she could have ridden TSMM twice ... nothing ... at ... all.

She wasn't "Obviously there"

She didn't "Obviously ride it once"


There are any number of reasons and situations where she could have thought she could have, or actually could have, ridden TSMM twice.

Note the "We didn't TRY TSMM" ...

Didn't even Try it ... didn't try to ride it twice, or once, or to FP it, or to SB it ... or ???

She didn't write anything about it. You are providing the context.

I can see the reasoning of your post, and where you are drawing it from. I can follow your logic, but it isn't sound or grounded in what she actually wrote.

The intentions of my question was not to provide context, but to ask how you can logically reason she didn't ride it at all? I find it illogical to assume she didn't ride it all. Can you assume it out of context? Sure. But contextually? No.

I don't see us coming to an understanding on this. So if it's okay, I wish not to discuss it any further.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

You didn't respond to the question with clarity, you also said

"Soarin' did not try as we hit the park after 12 noon the first time and not until near 4 the second day."

Does that mean you didn't try to ride it more than once, that you rode it once, that you headed over and saw the line and decided not to bother, that you went to the kiosk and didn't even look up Soarin, that you had FPs for it but then just left afterwards and didn't check on the SB line or for more FPs ?

It could mean any number of things.

There is no reason to think any of them, to say "She obviously rode Soarin and saw that she couldn't ride it again" is creating context, adding and event or detail to the environment of the original statement without sufficient evidence or support.

Really basic concept.

I had the same thought about letting it go.

And your questions have been asked and answered. But you seem keen on dragging this out further. We rode ALL rides in question. ETA: to be crystal clear--those physically able. /discussion

 

[jeffbear]

Ummm ... I'm not reading all that, just for the record. A 6-10 string of posts on nothing but semantics tends to be a turnoff. Just sayin'

As to the original question ... I'm a former commando FP user who isn't really put out by the new FP+ setup. But it MUST be said that I no longer have little kids to tour with as my children are now young adults. Thus the park touring time for my group has skewed away from rope drop towards nighttime touring. FP+ actually helps in that setup, even if you have to plan your days out much further in advance.

Bottom line ... it all depends on what you value most and why.

 

[Shaden]

The intentions of my question was not to provide context, but to ask how you can logically reason she didn't ride it at all? I find it illogical to assume she didn't ride it all. Can you assume it out of context? Sure. But contextually? No.

I don't see us coming to an understanding on this. So if it's okay, I wish not to discuss it any further.

Sure. The same way there is no point in me arguing with a student when they don't do well on an essay or exam, and even after clearly pointing out where they went wrong, they would still like a higher grade.

You might find it illogical, but I have just explained to you a number of other possible scenarios which lead to the exact same statement on her part. All of which are equally plausible. With no reason to accept one over the other, other than your personal preference.

How do you read her last statement "Soarin' did not try as we hit the park after 12 noon the first time and not until near 4 the second day."
Did they ride Soarin once ? Did they not try it at all ? did they not try to ride it more than once ? What exactly does that mean ? We, don't, know.

You should also remember this whole discussion was actually about her reaction to another posters reaction to her statement. Asking how she could evaluate FP+ if she didn't try 2 of the parks most highly demanded rides, TSMM and Soarin.

Her statement is quite obviously unclear, and implies a different meaning than (it is now apparent) the poster intended. Indeed the poster has said she will "be more clear" in the future.

 

[Jennygt]

Op thanks for the original question, I am in the same boat for this August. To be honest if not for my children begging me I would just skip it altogether and go to the beach

 

[Rachel77]

May I please add this question to OP's? Are you getting to reride favorites? Our superusing family likes Soarin x 3, TSMM x 3 and EE x 3. Anyone pulling that off? Thinking about May...

Momof2n2,

We typically go the first week of May and like to reride multiple times too. For EP, we like to do both TT and Soarin. With FP+, we've just been able to do one ride for each - RD one and FP+ the other.

With FP-, I'd grab a FP for one, ride the other, and then grab a FP for the one just ridden for a total of 3 rides between the two.

Same for TSMM - FP+ has cut our ride number from 3 to 2.

 

[WillAustin]

You can still easily get 2 rides on TSMM doing one at rope drop and one FP+. Maybe 3. I guess I could theoretically do more than that, but waiting more than 20 minutes in a line might kill me.

 

[Rachel77]

Thing is, I need advice. Tips. We are going one of the busiest weeks of the year (week after Easter). The thing that scares me the most is reading that rope drop is no longer the advantage that it once was. Whats a former uber user to do? If you've embraced the new way and had a good trip can you help me out here? How did you handle the changes and make the trip great? I know it can be done....The truth is out there

I still find RD the most useful thing - especially in the MK where we've been able to ride BTM 3X in a row before it gets busy. With the busy week you're going too, it will be an early RD so hopefully less folks will be getting up that early.

We go once a year so it makes it easier to deal with, but I just put myself in the mindset we won't be riding the number of times we want to - or used to do. Try to get as much as you can during RD and then FP anything that's a must do knowing you'll be able to ride it at least once.

We park hop too, so sometimes we do all RD at the MK, leave for the afternoon, go to EP at night and use FP+ for TT or Soarin - something we couldn't do before on FP-

We can't change it, so I guess we have to embrace it. Although if I was granted a wish from a genie in a bottle it would be for those good old days with FP- with the return time not enforced

 

[lllGurulll]

This doesn't seem to be friendly discussion anymore. just a bunch of harping back and forth over the meaning of words now.

 

[SmithSmith]

This doesn't seem to be friendly discussion anymore. just a bunch of harping back and forth over the meaning of words now.

Don't worry, I promise it's over. I won't be responding anymore to someone who accuses me of not grasping the English language (among other things) then goes on to use the word "yea", when they mean "yeah".