"Car 3" is quite unique. They claim they used to love this party. So why can't they turn down that invite every year?
That's one reason the Car Analogy fails to work widely. To a certain extent, the Cars represent personality types as much as feelings towards WDW. I suspect that the Car #3 mindset is difficult to "step into," for other mindsets... that's why I so often interject that Cars 1 through 3 are all still going to WDW: there seems to be the feeling among some others that if you are going to WDW, you should damn well keep your mouth shut and smile, like everybody else. Some people can't comprehend that one can list all the ways a company has declined, all the special factors their products have lost, and still come to the conclusion that that company and those products are one's best options, so far.
If the carpools were about the War in Iraq, all the Cars would be praying for a swift satisfying end to the War with minimal casualities on all fronts... but Car #1 would be saying "this was a good idea for the US the smooths the road," Car #2 would be saying "this was a good idea for the US, but could cause us more problems down the road," and Car #3 would be saying "this was a bad idea for the US because it will very likely lead to worse problem down the road."
Ultimately, Car #1 would be telling Car #3 to "love it or leave it," and Car #3 would be calling Car #1 a bunch of political "puppets."
Pretty much the same dynamic we've got, here.
The topic itself isn't really devisive (because the topic is not "should we go to war," anymore, we're at war. Every sane human being wants this over soon and safe... we're all in the same carpool, on that scope: just like the cars are all headed to Disney), it's our way of parsing the relevant data through our individual cognitive interpreters that gives us our ordinaled convoy.
Beyond that, it's not so clear as you imply that Car #3 is a final destination, rather than the place you wait for a couple years until something finally decimates the discs on your particular camel. I'm pretty sure HB2K joins me in being a former Car #3 inhabitant, who, at this point, truly does find themselves in Car #4: for the first time since I've been paying for my own vacations, I do not have a trip to WDW planned.
"Creaky old-timers" huh? Man - I hope not!
Sometimes when I make a joke like that, I forget that this ID hasn't been on the boards as long as I have. The "creaky old-timer" crack was aimed squarely back at myself and those who have been on the boards since the 90's sometime, and have had the "What's this Carpool thing all about?" discussion more than a few times already. Those are the only folks who are going to really identify with the definitions as they're posted on the front page.
To me they really aren't in a different car they just inserted a level of expectation which makes everything more complicated as they got older.
I agree with you for a while, then I don't.
Personally, I think substituting a more concrete expectation from Disney makes everything simpler than if I rely only on "how much fun I had," which depends only partially (and likely, secondarily) on Disney's contribution to the equation. By examining how the project was executed, you can get an idea for how the company is doing without adding your own prejudices about what is fun or entertaining... or how cute the li'l crusaders look spitting up on the Tea Cups.
If you look the project execution, it's clear to see that Splash Mountain and Tower of Terror were the last things in WDW built "right," even though I happen to enjoy riding Rock 'n' Roller Coaster a helluva lot more than either of the others.
Some people didn't pick Cars based on the question "Can you have fun at WDW," and that's what some Car #1 folks appear to believe was always the intention. So the Cars aren't useful for meaningful discussion.
So why can't they turn down that invite every year
See, that's both an unfair generalization (some Car 3ers have begun to turn it down... it's just that officially makes them Car #4, now...) and it treads dangerously close to making judgements and editorials on the personal decisions of others about their own lives. It is not for you to deem all Car #3 members pitiful junkies who would go cold turkey if they just had the will power or the clarity of thought.
a level of expectation... This approach is a guarantee for disappointment.
Oh, I agree. If you go to WDW with no expectations at all, you won't be disappointed. That's a valid way to live life, but it is not the only valid way. Some prefer a more structured framework for their lives.
Or perhaps you knew all that... and the quote was just your velvet-gloved way of saying "love it or leave it," in the end?
The people I do not place in this category are the "smilers" overdressed, overpriced, overindulgent and insincere about their experience
Are you suggesting a division of Car #1... sincere and insincere? I think I can save you the trouble of posting a poll...
-WFH
) as we can all agree that there is Magic, usually plenty of old Magic and some new, and discuss the direction of Disney and whether or not new Magic is being created or will continue to be created.
.
We're the ones clear-headed remembering how much fun it used to be...and the Car 1'ers are swallowing Mike's aspirin trying to forget the bad stuff they saw...
