3 ms·

No, it's not a lie at all. The idea is they would put up the signs when they reopen, then probably take them down when they're no longer required. This whole

No, it's not a lie at all. The idea is they would put up the signs when they reopen, then probably take them down when they're no longer required. This whole thing is a temporary measure.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
rscoots 6y ago
The words "may need" is the lie. Is there anything to indicate these signs will be required in order for parks to reopen?
- pmiller2 6y ago
  How else would you propose to indicate to people that there's no screaming on the rides?
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    I, the industry plan cited in the article, and the actual state industry-specific guidelines for amusement parks would all address this by requiring riders to wear masks. The article’s concern is pure fantasy being advanced as a form of anti-state-administration political propaganda, to fuel the current recall effort.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> The idea is they would put up the signs when they reopen There is nothing in either the actual published state industry-specific rules for amusement parks, or the lobbying document from the industry association suggesting that such signs would be required, recommended, suggested, or...well, anything else. The entire idea seems to be an invention of the article writer, whose nearest nexus to reality is the non-industry-specific concerns from a not-fully-cited source which seems to be some earlier version of the state reopening blueprint (but, notably, not the industry-specific guidance which has already been issued for the amusement park industry) which mentions activities involving screaming, etc., as things that need to be limited or mitigated generically to reopen. But the cited industry lobbying plan itself proposes addressing—and the actual state industry-specific guidance for amusement parks (that the article simply ignores) addresses—this with masking, not any rules about limiting or discouraging screaming, whether by signs or otherwise.

No, it's not a lie at all. The idea is they would put up the signs when they reopen, then probably take them down when they're no longer required. This whole thing is a temporary measure.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

rscoots 6y ago

The words "may need" is the lie. Is there anything to indicate these signs will be required in order for parks to reopen?

pmiller2 6y ago
How else would you propose to indicate to people that there's no screaming on the rides?
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  I, the industry plan cited in the article, and the actual state industry-specific guidelines for amusement parks would all address this by requiring riders to wear masks. The article’s concern is pure fantasy being advanced as a form of anti-state-administration political propaganda, to fuel the current recall effort.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The idea is they would put up the signs when they reopen There is nothing in either the actual published state industry-specific rules for amusement parks, or the lobbying document from the industry association suggesting that such signs would be required, recommended, suggested, or...well, anything else. The entire idea seems to be an invention of the article writer, whose nearest nexus to reality is the non-industry-specific concerns from a not-fully-cited source which seems to be some earlier version of the state reopening blueprint (but, notably, not the industry-specific guidance which has already been issued for the amusement park industry) which mentions activities involving screaming, etc., as things that need to be limited or mitigated generically to reopen. But the cited industry lobbying plan itself proposes addressing—and the actual state industry-specific guidance for amusement parks (that the article simply ignores) addresses—this with masking, not any rules about limiting or discouraging screaming, whether by signs or otherwise.