Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely doubt that anyone is gleeful about this. Or shoving this in the faces of the parents.

But maybe you'll reassess your own risk management. If you see a sign that says "No Swimming" you'll ask about its scope. You won't try to outsmart the sign-maker. "I wasn't swimming! I was wading!!!! I was toe-dangling! I wasn't swimming!"

Maybe when you visit someplace you will see unfamiliar situations differently. Rather than assuming that an area is safe (I have heard of no sign saying "Disney is a gator-free zone"), you'll ask to gain a bit better understanding of what hidden risks there might be. Maybe.

Um, did you see the post right before your post about luggage fees? Or the Dave Barry post pages back?

Yes, there are dcum posters taking glee in this child's death and the parents unimagineable pain.

I did. And I will posit that those posters are not "people" as that term is commonly used.

I do also think, though, the the people who are screaming about signage need to step back. The world is inherently dangerous and no one will apprise you of every risk. This is just life. And there are more risks when you leave your zone of familiarity. Ultimately, it is your job to keep you safe. To do some basic legwork. You cannot depend upon someone else's risk assessment and sign diction to keep you safe. If you think you've outsmarted the sign, you will eventually outsmart yourself.

I went to college in Tampa and my apartment complex(es) all had manmade lakes/ponds and all had gators in some capacity.
My junior and senior years of college, we looked over the smaller-than-a-lake,larger-than-a-pond and there was a picnic table and community grill maybe five feet from the waters edge. People are so used to the ideas of the gators in Florida, it is absolutely commonplace to entertain immediately next to the water, as long as you aren't in it. I've seen pavillions right next/on top of he hillsborough river for picnics, parties, and company outings.

I post this, not to say (shocking!) Florida has gators, but in response to all the people that wonder why Disney would encourage people to come down to the beach area but not want them in the water. If when I was walking the dog, we saw a gator sunning itsself (and they're not usually looking for food then) we'd just turn the other direction.

I agree the signage could have been more detailed about the dangers, but I think this was just a horrible tragic accident. Those poor parents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess they should have other signs too. In front of all the vegetation warning of water moccasins and rattlesnakes. Bats at night?

It is easy to lay blame. It is easy to say "If they'd only posted a sign". Random, senseless events add disorder to a world we try to make well ordered and predictable and therefore presumably more secure. But face it, had there been a sign, chances are better than even the kid would have been right where he was. Not because of neglect, dad would have diligently looked to see if there were a gator there. And it is very very unlikely that he would have seen a gator lurking in that vegetation swimming toward shore at dusk.

Had there been a sign about gators, people would still have let their small children near the water? You have a poor opinion of the intelligence of rest of the country and a poor opinion of parents' desire to protect their children. I'm sure there still would be boneheads feeding alligators, but at least the parents of small children would have been warned.

There WAS a warning.
It said "No Swimming."
It doesn't matter if the "no swimming" is because of potential amoebas or because they are worried about drowning or because of alligators or if it's because Disney is just mean and doesn't want people to enjoy the lake.

It's private property. The owners say "no swimming" and people need to follow the rules. Period.

Well, okay, but seriously. These people are paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort. You're not supposed to go in the pools at night, but that doesn't mean that a reasonable person would assume that they have electrified the pool so that anyone who touches the water is electrocuted, or that you'll be gunned down by security for trespassing. I mean, it's nice to let your guests know when the penalty for violating the rules is death, versus getting yelled at.

Exactly-"paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort." The resort made it quite clear that swimming/wading in the lagoons was NOT an accommodation. They apparently thought the rules didn't apply to THEM. Their child paid a steep price for his parents sense of entitlement.

The sign didn't specify wading, did it? Or being near the edge of the water? The alligator didn't even need to be in the water at all to grab a child close to the edge. You sound almost gleeful that these parents lost their child.

Again---just like the kids that antagonize their siblings with "I'm not touching you!"--these parents "We're not swimming!" Rules don't apply to them, as far as they are concerned.
I'm not "gleeful" and don't think I sound that way. I'm actually angry that an innocent child paid the price of his parents sense of entitlement.

You seem insanely rigid. If your kids do the "I'm not touching" thing, do you rip their arm off? Throw them out of the car? A reasonable person could assume that wading is not swimming and that the penalty for letting your child wade in a Disney lake while watching fireworks is not watching them be dragged off and drowned by an alligator. And guess what, Disney agrees and will pay a huge settlement to this family.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry--that worry is also filled with brain eating bacteria. The parents were already playing with fire letting their child play in the water.

How would they know this? Plus, wading is not swimming. Anyone would have done the same thing. Of course there should be warning signs about gators. That poor, poor family and that poor child. I can't even think about it.

Ignorance isn't an excuse for doing something dangerous.

Wading in ankle deep water is not dangerous when you are from most parts of the world.

+1. Here's the photo a PP linked to, showing a little boy at the exact spot where Lane Graves was attacked, about a half-hour before that happened. Most people would not consider this to be a dangerous activity.

Yes. They are that quiet and difficult to see.



Yeah, and I see a sign to the left - clear as it could be - posting "No swimming or wading or whatever". See that sign to the left!

I see the back of a sign. The back of the sign that I see looks suspiciously like the back of other signs I have seen at Disney that simply say "no swimming".

If it was this bright out 30 min earlier, then it was still relatively light out 30 min later. How did the dad not see an alligator approaching -- the water seems pretty clear at the edges. Are they that quiet? Do they move super fast?

The mother who posted this between 8 and 8:30. The attack happened at 9:30. So 60-90 minutes later. The sun can certainly go down in that amount of time.

still do you NOT SEE THE SIGN? I DO! And when I see them, I make sure my kids see them too and comply. Do you let your kids walk beyond the warning signs at the Grand Canon to stand on the soft sand ridge? Of course not.

Anonymous wrote:I sincerely doubt that anyone is gleeful about this. Or shoving this in the faces of the parents.

But maybe you'll reassess your own risk management. If you see a sign that says "No Swimming" you'll ask about its scope. You won't try to outsmart the sign-maker. "I wasn't swimming! I was wading!!!! I was toe-dangling! I wasn't swimming!"

Maybe when you visit someplace you will see unfamiliar situations differently. Rather than assuming that an area is safe (I have heard of no sign saying "Disney is a gator-free zone"), you'll ask to gain a bit better understanding of what hidden risks there might be. Maybe.

Um, did you see the post right before your post about luggage fees? Or the Dave Barry post pages back?

Yes, there are dcum posters taking glee in this child's death and the parents unimagineable pain.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess they should have other signs too. In front of all the vegetation warning of water moccasins and rattlesnakes. Bats at night?

It is easy to lay blame. It is easy to say "If they'd only posted a sign". Random, senseless events add disorder to a world we try to make well ordered and predictable and therefore presumably more secure. But face it, had there been a sign, chances are better than even the kid would have been right where he was. Not because of neglect, dad would have diligently looked to see if there were a gator there. And it is very very unlikely that he would have seen a gator lurking in that vegetation swimming toward shore at dusk.

Had there been a sign about gators, people would still have let their small children near the water? You have a poor opinion of the intelligence of rest of the country and a poor opinion of parents' desire to protect their children. I'm sure there still would be boneheads feeding alligators, but at least the parents of small children would have been warned.

There WAS a warning.
It said "No Swimming."
It doesn't matter if the "no swimming" is because of potential amoebas or because they are worried about drowning or because of alligators or if it's because Disney is just mean and doesn't want people to enjoy the lake.

It's private property. The owners say "no swimming" and people need to follow the rules. Period.

Well, okay, but seriously. These people are paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort. You're not supposed to go in the pools at night, but that doesn't mean that a reasonable person would assume that they have electrified the pool so that anyone who touches the water is electrocuted, or that you'll be gunned down by security for trespassing. I mean, it's nice to let your guests know when the penalty for violating the rules is death, versus getting yelled at.

Exactly-"paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort." The resort made it quite clear that swimming/wading in the lagoons was NOT an accommodation. They apparently thought the rules didn't apply to THEM. Their child paid a steep price for his parents sense of entitlement.

The sign didn't specify wading, did it? Or being near the edge of the water? The alligator didn't even need to be in the water at all to grab a child close to the edge. You sound almost gleeful that these parents lost their child.

Again---just like the kids that antagonize their siblings with "I'm not touching you!"--these parents "We're not swimming!" Rules don't apply to them, as far as they are concerned.
I'm not "gleeful" and don't think I sound that way. I'm actually angry that an innocent child paid the price of his parents sense of entitlement.

You are being gleeful. And sanctimonious. And absolutely horrid.

You should step away from the internet and take a few days to process this.

When you come back and reread all the posts you have written, you will be absolutely horrified at how cold, heartless, smug and unfeeling you have been.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess they should have other signs too. In front of all the vegetation warning of water moccasins and rattlesnakes. Bats at night?

It is easy to lay blame. It is easy to say "If they'd only posted a sign". Random, senseless events add disorder to a world we try to make well ordered and predictable and therefore presumably more secure. But face it, had there been a sign, chances are better than even the kid would have been right where he was. Not because of neglect, dad would have diligently looked to see if there were a gator there. And it is very very unlikely that he would have seen a gator lurking in that vegetation swimming toward shore at dusk.

Had there been a sign about gators, people would still have let their small children near the water? You have a poor opinion of the intelligence of rest of the country and a poor opinion of parents' desire to protect their children. I'm sure there still would be boneheads feeding alligators, but at least the parents of small children would have been warned.

There WAS a warning.
It said "No Swimming."
It doesn't matter if the "no swimming" is because of potential amoebas or because they are worried about drowning or because of alligators or if it's because Disney is just mean and doesn't want people to enjoy the lake.

It's private property. The owners say "no swimming" and people need to follow the rules. Period.

Well, okay, but seriously. These people are paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort. You're not supposed to go in the pools at night, but that doesn't mean that a reasonable person would assume that they have electrified the pool so that anyone who touches the water is electrocuted, or that you'll be gunned down by security for trespassing. I mean, it's nice to let your guests know when the penalty for violating the rules is death, versus getting yelled at.

Exactly-"paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort." The resort made it quite clear that swimming/wading in the lagoons was NOT an accommodation. They apparently thought the rules didn't apply to THEM. Their child paid a steep price for his parents sense of entitlement.

The sign didn't specify wading, did it? Or being near the edge of the water? The alligator didn't even need to be in the water at all to grab a child close to the edge. You sound almost gleeful that these parents lost their child.

Again---just like the kids that antagonize their siblings with "I'm not touching you!"--these parents "We're not swimming!" Rules don't apply to them, as far as they are concerned.
I'm not "gleeful" and don't think I sound that way. I'm actually angry that an innocent child paid the price of his parents sense of entitlement.

Wow "entitlement" troll doubles down...

At this point I'm considering lighting a candle and a praying for your misfortunes.

Again---just like the kids that antagonize their siblings with "I'm not touching you!"--these parents "We're not swimming!" Rules don't apply to them, as far as they are concerned.
I'm not "gleeful" and don't think I sound that way. I'm actually angry that an innocent child paid the price of his parents sense of entitlement[b].

DCUMie, definitely and not a Southerner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess they should have other signs too. In front of all the vegetation warning of water moccasins and rattlesnakes. Bats at night?

It is easy to lay blame. It is easy to say "If they'd only posted a sign". Random, senseless events add disorder to a world we try to make well ordered and predictable and therefore presumably more secure. But face it, had there been a sign, chances are better than even the kid would have been right where he was. Not because of neglect, dad would have diligently looked to see if there were a gator there. And it is very very unlikely that he would have seen a gator lurking in that vegetation swimming toward shore at dusk.

Had there been a sign about gators, people would still have let their small children near the water? You have a poor opinion of the intelligence of rest of the country and a poor opinion of parents' desire to protect their children. I'm sure there still would be boneheads feeding alligators, but at least the parents of small children would have been warned.

There WAS a warning.
It said "No Swimming."
It doesn't matter if the "no swimming" is because of potential amoebas or because they are worried about drowning or because of alligators or if it's because Disney is just mean and doesn't want people to enjoy the lake.

It's private property. The owners say "no swimming" and people need to follow the rules. Period.

Well, okay, but seriously. These people are paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort. You're not supposed to go in the pools at night, but that doesn't mean that a reasonable person would assume that they have electrified the pool so that anyone who touches the water is electrocuted, or that you'll be gunned down by security for trespassing. I mean, it's nice to let your guests know when the penalty for violating the rules is death, versus getting yelled at.

Exactly-"paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort." The resort made it quite clear that swimming/wading in the lagoons was NOT an accommodation. They apparently thought the rules didn't apply to THEM. Their child paid a steep price for his parents sense of entitlement.

The sign didn't specify wading, did it? Or being near the edge of the water? The alligator didn't even need to be in the water at all to grab a child close to the edge. You sound almost gleeful that these parents lost their child.

Again---just like the kids that antagonize their siblings with "I'm not touching you!"--these parents "We're not swimming!" Rules don't apply to them, as far as they are concerned.
I'm not "gleeful" and don't think I sound that way. I'm actually angry that an innocent child paid the price of his parents sense of entitlement.

There was no sense of entitlement. They just didn't know that no swimming meant stay the eff away or your kid could get eaten by an alligator. Which is not such a strange thing. We understand that you are perfect, but the rest of us are not.

I sincerely doubt that anyone is gleeful about this. Or shoving this in the faces of the parents.

But maybe you'll reassess your own risk management. If you see a sign that says "No Swimming" you'll ask about its scope. You won't try to outsmart the sign-maker. "I wasn't swimming! I was wading!!!! I was toe-dangling! I wasn't swimming!"

Maybe when you visit someplace you will see unfamiliar situations differently. Rather than assuming that an area is safe (I have heard of no sign saying "Disney is a gator-free zone"), you'll ask to gain a bit better understanding of what hidden risks there might be. Maybe.

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is just further proof that many Southerners are sanctimonious, judgmental asses.

"OMG, who doesn't know about gators and the dangers of fresh water?!?!"

"Good Christians," my ass.

Well, I'm one of the people judging the parents, and I'm originally from Massachusetts. Definitely not a "Southerner."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is just further proof that many Southerners are sanctimonious, judgmental asses.

"OMG, who doesn't know about gators and the dangers of fresh water?!?!"

"Good Christians," my ass.

This is dcum.

And the people being sanctimonious are making it clear they don't go to Disney and do not stay on Disney property.

Based on these two things odds are very strong that the sanctimoneous bitches are most likely your typical dcum know it all atheist troll who hates children and puts animal life over human life, have disdain for the parents for being midwesterners.

The Floridians, while repetitve (everyone knows alligators are in lakes and swimming pools and feed at night) have not really taken glee in this child's death and smugly atracked the parents in their time of loss.

It is very unlikely that the sanctimonious trolls are conservative, Christian southerners.

And by people I mean probalby one or two really deranged trolls. I think that the sanctimonious ones (again, not the tone deaf floridians, we get it now. Gators eat at night at the waters edge) are taking special glee in this tragedy and just posting over and over because they are sick individuals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess they should have other signs too. In front of all the vegetation warning of water moccasins and rattlesnakes. Bats at night?

It is easy to lay blame. It is easy to say "If they'd only posted a sign". Random, senseless events add disorder to a world we try to make well ordered and predictable and therefore presumably more secure. But face it, had there been a sign, chances are better than even the kid would have been right where he was. Not because of neglect, dad would have diligently looked to see if there were a gator there. And it is very very unlikely that he would have seen a gator lurking in that vegetation swimming toward shore at dusk.

Had there been a sign about gators, people would still have let their small children near the water? You have a poor opinion of the intelligence of rest of the country and a poor opinion of parents' desire to protect their children. I'm sure there still would be boneheads feeding alligators, but at least the parents of small children would have been warned.

There WAS a warning.
It said "No Swimming."
It doesn't matter if the "no swimming" is because of potential amoebas or because they are worried about drowning or because of alligators or if it's because Disney is just mean and doesn't want people to enjoy the lake.

It's private property. The owners say "no swimming" and people need to follow the rules. Period.

Well, okay, but seriously. These people are paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort. You're not supposed to go in the pools at night, but that doesn't mean that a reasonable person would assume that they have electrified the pool so that anyone who touches the water is electrocuted, or that you'll be gunned down by security for trespassing. I mean, it's nice to let your guests know when the penalty for violating the rules is death, versus getting yelled at.

Exactly-"paying to enjoy the accommodations of a resort." The resort made it quite clear that swimming/wading in the lagoons was NOT an accommodation. They apparently thought the rules didn't apply to THEM. Their child paid a steep price for his parents sense of entitlement.

The sign didn't specify wading, did it? Or being near the edge of the water? The alligator didn't even need to be in the water at all to grab a child close to the edge. You sound almost gleeful that these parents lost their child.

Again---just like the kids that antagonize their siblings with "I'm not touching you!"--these parents "We're not swimming!" Rules don't apply to them, as far as they are concerned.
I'm not "gleeful" and don't think I sound that way. I'm actually angry that an innocent child paid the price of his parents sense of entitlement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This whole thread is just further proof that many Southerners are sanctimonious, judgmental asses.

"OMG, who doesn't know about gators and the dangers of fresh water?!?!"

"Good Christians," my ass.

This is dcum.

And the people being sanctimonious are making it clear they don't go to Disney and do not stay on Disney property.

Based on these two things odds are very strong that the sanctimoneous bitches are most likely your typical dcum know it all atheist troll who hates children and puts animal life over human life, have disdain for the parents for being midwesterners.

The Floridians, while repetitve (everyone knows alligators are in lakes and swimming pools and feed at night) have not really taken glee in this child's death and smugly atracked the parents in their time of loss.

It is very unlikely that the sanctimonious trolls are conservative, Christian southerners.

Yep. Guaranteed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm sorry--that worry is also filled with brain eating bacteria. The parents were already playing with fire letting their child play in the water.

How would they know this? Plus, wading is not swimming. Anyone would have done the same thing. Of course there should be warning signs about gators. That poor, poor family and that poor child. I can't even think about it.

Ignorance isn't an excuse for doing something dangerous.

Wading in ankle deep water is not dangerous when you are from most parts of the world.

+1. Here's the photo a PP linked to, showing a little boy at the exact spot where Lane Graves was attacked, about a half-hour before that happened. Most people would not consider this to be a dangerous activity.

Yes. They are that quiet and difficult to see.



Yeah, and I see a sign to the left - clear as it could be - posting "No swimming or wading or whatever". See that sign to the left!

I see the back of a sign. The back of the sign that I see looks suspiciously like the back of other signs I have seen at Disney that simply say "no swimming".

If it was this bright out 30 min earlier, then it was still relatively light out 30 min later. How did the dad not see an alligator approaching -- the water seems pretty clear at the edges. Are they that quiet? Do they move super fast?

The mother who posted this between 8 and 8:30. The attack happened at 9:30. So 60-90 minutes later. The sun can certainly go down in that amount of time.