OK, st __ry, will do. But, one question: why did you not also ask Mike to not make comments about you? — recall he called you a “cool guy”. And why is it you are, in turn, allowed to make comments to and about ME?
And Mike, I’m not talking down to you by urging you to properly comprehend the thread, because undeniably you did NOT properly comprehend it when you wrongly concluded I was inappropriately “hassling” he who shall be un-named.
And both you guys: I’ll keep going with this — responding to (hence not initiating) comments to and about me from either of you — as long as you keep engaging in petty last-wording. So whether this nonsense, none of it related to theaters and all of it no doubt a great bore and bother to other members of this site, continues or ends is your choice (but please choose “ends”!).
I’ve said it in my prior post but it apparently bears repeating: “let’s get back to — and stick with — theaters instead of think-skinned worries”.
Mike, I can’t answer your question, because its premise is false: I have NOT “hassled” lost memory; in fact, if you’re able to take the time to read (and properly comprehend) the thread here, you’ll see I was actually defending MYSELF against hassling messages (as when, in response to my playful, generally-aimed “get over it”, lost memory aimed a not-so-playful, pointedly-directed “get over it” at me). That said, not once have I complained to or about lost memory, nor have I made any requests of him (and I trust he understands that). Either way, we’re all adults here and I think we can look out for ourselves. As for lost memory’s coolness, I don’t doubt it for a minute. But my comments were never predicated on a lack of any coolness on his or anyone else’s part. No harm, no foul. I haven’t intended to offend anyone and I haven’t taken any offense. So let’s get back to — and stick with — theaters instead of think-skinned worries. :)
Anyone remember the cool blue illuminated Leed’s Jewelers clock in the Regent? (Sorry, I guess I should ask that at the Regent entry.)
Paul, I actually lived in Boston at the time and am now in Austin; I was just visiting WNY when I toured the theater site (anyone can e-mail me at for pics). Thanks for the picture; a veritable Mayan ruin.
Paul, I actually lived in Boston at the time and am now in Austin; I was just visiting WNY when I toured the theater site (anyone can e-mail me at for pics). Thanks for the picture; a veritable Mayan ruin.
Paul, I made the same “archeological” photo-tour you did a couple years ago. Eerie and maybe sad, but fun as well. But, hey, weeds grow fast in that area, and rust and decay (with WNY winters) grow faster.
1) My comments about corroboration weren’t directed at you (so why then did you take them that way?), but the posters who actually suggested there wasn’t any corroborating evidence — as though there wasn’t any to be had, period (which clearly isn’t the case).
2) Note that I have never clamored for revision of the information here, but have simply pointed out that it’s misleading. Instead, OTHER posters have suggested revision — including yourself (i.e., my only comments about revision were in brief, direct response to YOUR suggested rewording of this entry). Further, it wasn’t I but another poster who suggested the Observer source. In at least these two ways, then, I face no “burden of proof”; leave the entry misleading if you like.
3) I was attempting to mediate between two posters, one who offered a source for corroboration, and the other who seemed to impugn that source — without ever consulting it. My point was that there’s little value in debating what’s in a given box: just open up the box and find out. I personally don’t care if anyone opens the box (i.e., checks with the Observer), but it is, plainly, foolish to speculate on what is or isn’t the case with this ownership without being willing to investigate it and actually doing so.
4) My comments here have little to do with the theater in question, but rather the commentary on its entry on this site. Further, if I were obsessed with the theater, perhaps I WOULD in fact bother with not only leading everyone here to irrefutable corroborating information but presenting it to them gift-wrapped in their laps — but I’m not so obsessed. Accordingly, your assertion that I have an “obsession” with the theater is only entirely wrong (but only entirely). That said, what does it matter what my motives are? — either my comments are valid or not.
Get over it people: it did NOT close almost 30 years ago; once again (Mike), my source is…the fact I WENT there (and I would say actual advertisements, verifiable by the same, still-running paper that ran them, is a pretty good corroborating source).
It’s not altogether rational to say “I wouldn’t change something without proof”, when the only thing standing between the changer and the proof is actually bothering to consult the sources plainly offered here (e.g., Dunkirk Evening Observer); the sources aren’t going to magically approach us with pertinent evidence of their own volition.
Separately, I’m not sure I understand what’s meant by “As long as my name is on this theater”; the theater is now closed with NO name on it (maybe what was meant wasn’t the “theater”, per se, but the theatre’s listing on this site?).
Lastly, should any of us begin to worry about how much needling attention we’ve afforded an exceptionally trivial matter like this? It’s as though we’re debating language for a Cuban missile crisis communique, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
Because that language actually doesn’t describe what’s been presented here: by most apparent accounts, the Cohen family did NOT operate the drive-in past 1979, but, for at least part of that time, Dipson did (and I can confirm that Dipson did run the Cine). Am I misunderstanding something? Reconciling language would be this: “…built and run by the Cohen family in 1949, apparently changing hands to Dipson at some point and ultimately closing in the early 90s under unconfirmed ownership”.
If the Transit Drive-In’s history page is at all accurate in this regard, a reconciliation of it and the fact that the Van Buren Drive-In was open throughout the ‘80s would be that it closed and then re-opened, perhaps in connection with new ownership. In any case, I’m not referencing any third-party source in my claim of The Van Buren Drive-In’s activity during the '80s, but the fact that I actually watched films there during this same period.
OK, st __ry, will do. But, one question: why did you not also ask Mike to not make comments about you? — recall he called you a “cool guy”. And why is it you are, in turn, allowed to make comments to and about ME?
And Mike, I’m not talking down to you by urging you to properly comprehend the thread, because undeniably you did NOT properly comprehend it when you wrongly concluded I was inappropriately “hassling” he who shall be un-named.
And both you guys: I’ll keep going with this — responding to (hence not initiating) comments to and about me from either of you — as long as you keep engaging in petty last-wording. So whether this nonsense, none of it related to theaters and all of it no doubt a great bore and bother to other members of this site, continues or ends is your choice (but please choose “ends”!).
I’ve said it in my prior post but it apparently bears repeating: “let’s get back to — and stick with — theaters instead of think-skinned worries”.
Kudos to William for the helpful info.
Mike, I can’t answer your question, because its premise is false: I have NOT “hassled” lost memory; in fact, if you’re able to take the time to read (and properly comprehend) the thread here, you’ll see I was actually defending MYSELF against hassling messages (as when, in response to my playful, generally-aimed “get over it”, lost memory aimed a not-so-playful, pointedly-directed “get over it” at me). That said, not once have I complained to or about lost memory, nor have I made any requests of him (and I trust he understands that). Either way, we’re all adults here and I think we can look out for ourselves. As for lost memory’s coolness, I don’t doubt it for a minute. But my comments were never predicated on a lack of any coolness on his or anyone else’s part. No harm, no foul. I haven’t intended to offend anyone and I haven’t taken any offense. So let’s get back to — and stick with — theaters instead of think-skinned worries. :)
Anyone remember the cool blue illuminated Leed’s Jewelers clock in the Regent? (Sorry, I guess I should ask that at the Regent entry.)
Paul, I actually lived in Boston at the time and am now in Austin; I was just visiting WNY when I toured the theater site (anyone can e-mail me at for pics). Thanks for the picture; a veritable Mayan ruin.
Paul, I actually lived in Boston at the time and am now in Austin; I was just visiting WNY when I toured the theater site (anyone can e-mail me at for pics). Thanks for the picture; a veritable Mayan ruin.
Paul, I made the same “archeological” photo-tour you did a couple years ago. Eerie and maybe sad, but fun as well. But, hey, weeds grow fast in that area, and rust and decay (with WNY winters) grow faster.
Lost Memory, consider these facts:
1) My comments about corroboration weren’t directed at you (so why then did you take them that way?), but the posters who actually suggested there wasn’t any corroborating evidence — as though there wasn’t any to be had, period (which clearly isn’t the case).
2) Note that I have never clamored for revision of the information here, but have simply pointed out that it’s misleading. Instead, OTHER posters have suggested revision — including yourself (i.e., my only comments about revision were in brief, direct response to YOUR suggested rewording of this entry). Further, it wasn’t I but another poster who suggested the Observer source. In at least these two ways, then, I face no “burden of proof”; leave the entry misleading if you like.
3) I was attempting to mediate between two posters, one who offered a source for corroboration, and the other who seemed to impugn that source — without ever consulting it. My point was that there’s little value in debating what’s in a given box: just open up the box and find out. I personally don’t care if anyone opens the box (i.e., checks with the Observer), but it is, plainly, foolish to speculate on what is or isn’t the case with this ownership without being willing to investigate it and actually doing so.
4) My comments here have little to do with the theater in question, but rather the commentary on its entry on this site. Further, if I were obsessed with the theater, perhaps I WOULD in fact bother with not only leading everyone here to irrefutable corroborating information but presenting it to them gift-wrapped in their laps — but I’m not so obsessed. Accordingly, your assertion that I have an “obsession” with the theater is only entirely wrong (but only entirely). That said, what does it matter what my motives are? — either my comments are valid or not.
That said…can well all take a chill pill?! ;–)
(Mind you, when those of us who say it didn’t close say so, we mean it didn’t close for good at that time.)
Get over it people: it did NOT close almost 30 years ago; once again (Mike), my source is…the fact I WENT there (and I would say actual advertisements, verifiable by the same, still-running paper that ran them, is a pretty good corroborating source).
It’s not altogether rational to say “I wouldn’t change something without proof”, when the only thing standing between the changer and the proof is actually bothering to consult the sources plainly offered here (e.g., Dunkirk Evening Observer); the sources aren’t going to magically approach us with pertinent evidence of their own volition.
Separately, I’m not sure I understand what’s meant by “As long as my name is on this theater”; the theater is now closed with NO name on it (maybe what was meant wasn’t the “theater”, per se, but the theatre’s listing on this site?).
Lastly, should any of us begin to worry about how much needling attention we’ve afforded an exceptionally trivial matter like this? It’s as though we’re debating language for a Cuban missile crisis communique, with the fate of the world hanging in the balance.
Because that language actually doesn’t describe what’s been presented here: by most apparent accounts, the Cohen family did NOT operate the drive-in past 1979, but, for at least part of that time, Dipson did (and I can confirm that Dipson did run the Cine). Am I misunderstanding something? Reconciling language would be this: “…built and run by the Cohen family in 1949, apparently changing hands to Dipson at some point and ultimately closing in the early 90s under unconfirmed ownership”.
If the Transit Drive-In’s history page is at all accurate in this regard, a reconciliation of it and the fact that the Van Buren Drive-In was open throughout the ‘80s would be that it closed and then re-opened, perhaps in connection with new ownership. In any case, I’m not referencing any third-party source in my claim of The Van Buren Drive-In’s activity during the '80s, but the fact that I actually watched films there during this same period.
Actually, the Van Buren Drive-In was in operation at least through much of the 1980s.