geomorph

Great Bear Wilderness - Second Polar Bear Exhibit

  • Media owner geomorph
  • Date added
This new North American themed exhibit complex includes a large American bison exhibit, a bald eagle aviary, a grizzly bear exhibit with underwater viewing, a polar bear exhibit with underwater viewing, another polar bear exhibit with den viewing, a shop called Bear Crossings, a counter service restaurant called Bison Prairie Grill, and an indoor classroom with views into the bison and second polar bear exhibits. It also incorporates the existing Wolf Woods exhibit for Mexican Gray Wolf, and acts as the entrance to the existing Salt Creek Wilderness nature trail loop.
Too bad you don't get it; you might have learned something otherwise...:rolleyes:

I get it just fine, and what I said was true. I am able to see the same things he sees for the most part, but like I said, it's not as big of a deal to me, and I say that not just based on this one thread. He didn't seem to have an issue with what I said either.
 
What are you even talking about? What I'm saying is quite easy to understand, but apparently you're having trouble with it, or just choosing to be a jerk for some odd reason.

Once again, I don't negatively emphasize certain things as much as reduarki and apparently you do, so things that may make you guys say the exhibit isn't good won't lead me to say the same thing.
 
(...) so things that may make you guys say the exhibit isn't good won't lead me to say the same thing.
...which once again underlines your resistance to counseling. Too bad...

You might be writing, typing or pounding the keyboard-yet none of us is "talking", "speaking", "saying" or in other form vocalising with each here-or at least I can't hear anything:p. I'm being a "jerk" (if you want to put it n that very mature way...) because I don't like people accusing other, more experienced & knowledgable forum members of "working (themselves) up" just because they can't or don't want to understand their point of view.
 
I didn't accuse him of working himself up and I understand his point of view, so there was no need for any of this nonsense. Are you saying that the only way to understand ones point of view is to agree with it? And I guess I'm somehow resistant to "counseling" because I'm not as critical of certain aspects of zoo exhibits. There's these things called opinions and preferences, ever heard of them? Everyone has their own, you should accept that.
 
Everyone has their own, you should accept that.
So you think it's OK to accept a, say, racist, sexist, facist...all in all, simply foolish & wrong opinion just because "everyone has an opinion"? One way to understand someone's opinion is to go into it and try to find logic in it. Ever "heard" of that? By calling my previous posts "nonsense", you neither go into my demur, nor do you yourself live up to the "do-gooder" attitude of "just accepting everyone's opinion" you promote.

Constructive critique should be more important for modern zoo husbandry than blue-eyed extenuations of reality. By being more critical and responsive to logical & knowledgable critique, you'll gain more insight than by idealistic embellishment.
 
I think when talking about our opinions of zoo exhibits, yes, you should accept that everyone judges them differently. Debate about exhibits is great, but that's not what you're doing. Plus, it shouldn't be expected to for everyone to conform to the same exhibit critique philosophy.

You aren't even posting opinions of the exhibit, just attacking me for no good reason. So this isn't me refusing to accept opinions. I accept reduaki's opinions on exhibits, I just don't focus nearly as much on some of the things he does.

Who said constructive critique is bad? Hint: Not me. But most of what you've said has little to nothing to do with what I've said, so why should I expect that to stop?

You can continue this if you want, but I've had enough of this nonsense, and yes, that's exactly what it is. My comment to reduarki absolutely should not have led to this. BTW, the vast majority of posters on this site don't focus on the things Reduarki does as much as he does, so why don't you take it up with them? He is easily one of the most critical posters on here, and that's not a knock on him, but to expect everyone to have his viewpoint is rather ridiculous. It's also ridiculous to get on someones case for pointing out the he focuses on some things more than I do. But carry on.
 
Given the point that I made before (i.e. that there are unacceptable opinions), I don't think that every opinion should be accepted as equal to one another-even and in particular when zoos are involved. There are various objective criteria an exhibit can be judged upon; ignoring those just for the sake of a "personal opinion" won't get your anywhere-and surely doesn't convey the expression that you're open for constructive critique.

Did I force you to accept reduakari's opinion as "the one and only truth"? No; I stated that I agree with him and that the points he mentioned are valid. So you think that the "majority" does not agree? Counterquestion: do you always assemble your opinion according to the current taste of the masses?
If you want to avoid such "nonsense" in the future, don't accuse others of "working (themselves) up"-and don't try to have the final word just for the sake of it...
 

Media information

Category
Brookfield Zoo
Added by
geomorph
Date added
View count
5,945
Comment count
26
Rating
0.00 star(s) 0 ratings

Share this media

Back
Top