pilferk
Jambo Wildbunch Gang
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 6,881
personally? pleasssssssssssssssse. maybe thats what you desire but it aint gonna happen! buts lets be honest, the 2 of you, (who by the way are the only 2 who continue to to protest the walkway so vigorously) are so wrapped up in trying to convince me it wont happen you cant even acknowledge the pro's for a walkway
Not true. I think (actually, I know) I've said there are pro's...they're just outweighed, massively, by the potential cons. And I suspect (but don't know) the "pro's" we're talking about don't appeal to ENOUGH guests to make their implementation cost effective. I've also said repeatedly we can just agree to disagree on that point. You seem loathe to let it go, though.
And in the end, that's what the impetus is to making the decision.
In case you missed the other posters while you were trying to dismiss my opinions there were otheres saying not only would it be a good idea but they would also use it
I've seen posters on both sides of the issue post their views. So what?
Itsnot really worth debating then anymore. I have agreed, several times, the overall project probably wont take place anytime soon. I have agreed there are the potential pitfalls; a building, little swampy, cost, etc
but neither of you can even acknowledge the benefits of a path
Not true. We've pointed out that the "benefits" might apply to too small a population to be worthwhile OR are outweighed by the cons that accompany them.
so again you keep saying cost effective, yet you dont know the cost or the benefits. so how can you just keep saying its not cost effective?
I cant get into cost analysis because I dont the info, all I can go by is otheres resorts. Other resorts have paths. People use paths. People use them to bike, walk, jog.
thats it, thats the only facts outs there
again unless yo are privy to some inside cost/benefit info
(or those surveys you keep referring to![]()
We also know a couple other things:
There is no path currently.
Paths at previous resorts were built or were planned for before, or as, construction began.
As for being cost effective, I think we've laid out why it MIGHT NOT be cost effective. I don't think anyone has talked in absolutes. You have yet to counter that argument with why you think it would be. We've pointed out why the benefits you've proposed either might not be valuable or might not be valuable to ENOUGH people to make their implementation worthwhile. You can't disprove that (nor can I prove it), and seem reluctant to just concede the point and just agree to disagree
In any event, we're talking in circles now. Unless there's something "new" brought up in the discussion, I've said my piece and will move on.