This *is* quite awesome. Great find, subby!

Article seems to be missing something.... can't quite..... put my.....on it......mm.

I hate stories about awesome properties that don't include ample photographic documentation.

Unless I'm missing a link or something on this page with photos?

That's not a tree house, that's a house on top of a stump.

This is a Tree House Hotel

Wow, $96,000 (USD) to build a treehouse with your own labor and scrap materials? No wonder this guy went bankrupt and killed himself. Still cool that the creditors let the museum keep the treehouse for the local kids to play on. That steep slide in the last photo of the slideshow looks like you'd need to sign a waiver!

Wow. I enjoyed the plethora of photos, but I really liked the second and 29th. Thanks subby!

Isn't the point of a tree house NOT to have amenities?

Kind of like going camping with a $10 million dollar trailer with a heated swimming pool and 45-seat movie theater with surroundsound.

So the tallest treehouse in Britain starts 10 feet of the ground?

Well, okay. But here's what $12,000 and Jesus can build in Tennessee.

He was a carpenter after all.

fark plasma. LCD and LED are better.

havingfun: fark plasma. LCD and LED are better.

How else are you going to heat the treehouse?

The photos are AMAZING. I'm sharing this with friends and family today!

At what point does it stop being a tree house and become a regular house with a tree growing through the floor?

Probably some of the best quality pictures I've ever seen. Photographer should win a Pulitzer.

pics

Judginhg from the photo in TFA, the tree in front is growing into the treehouse...but it never comes out. Unless that tree was already dead, that automatically qualifies it as a bad treehouse.

/Whar tree! WHAR!

uselesslogin: pics

Thanks for the pics.

I do not understand how that hot-tub is either "Elevated" or even counted as part of the treehouse?

/Impressive job though

How did they get that hot tub all the way up there on the ground?
Also, looks like dead trees. That'll work out...

havingfun: fark plasma. LCD and LED are better.

Plasma TVs are for poor people. And douchebags. Basically, anyone who buys a TV based on screen size and price tag.

farkingismybusiness: Wow. I enjoyed the plethora of photos, but I really liked the second and 29th. Thanks subby!

I liked 12th & 20th

uselesslogin: pics

The Daily Fail does deliver after all.

Whirlpool bath?

shiat, baby, ain't nothing to me if there isn't a sauna.

Homer: Don't worry son, I'll build you a new treehouse--One so grand it'll be an affront to God himself.
Bart: Can it have a ladder you can pull up after you?
Homer: Only if it's an affront to God.

That guy looks fantastic for 54. Hell, he looks pretty good period.

Really, what's the point of staying in a place like this? If I want rustic, I use a camping tent. The same mentioned amenities are available at places like Hilton, Embassy Suites, Holiday Inn...

/I know, I'm missing the point here
//Would rather spend $ at a place like this:http://hendersonparkinn.com/
///Destin, Florida rocks

Honest Bender: havingfun: fark plasma. LCD and LED are better.

Plasma TVs are for poor people. And douchebags. Basically, anyone who buys a TV based on screen size and price tag.

plasma tvs have better contrast ratios, greater brightness, and less motion blurring than LCDs, LEDs have untrue color recreation compared to plasma tvs... tending to over-saturate in the blues and greens, but keep f*cking that chicken about plasma's being inferior product :)

LCDs are the "thing" to have because they're a bit thinner... and, of course, they're the more expensive option so they seem to be more in demand. i just picked up a 52" plasma for $550 on a thanksgiving day sale. the only thing it doesn't beat LCDs on is energy efficiency and being a high-gloss verses a matte - which does make glare more of a consideration - that and being 20lbs heavier than equivalent LCD.

plasma got a bad rap when they first came out, for the screens burning if the video feed was paused. the new ones don't have that problem, but LCD and LED have managed to take the lead and are more desirable by people trying to have the newest of the new, or impress people with how thin their screen is. sorta like betamax VS vhs.

/my 2 cents :)

ijason: plasma tvs have better contrast ratios, greater brightness, and less motion blurring than LCDs, LEDs have untrue color recreation compared to plasma tvs... tending to over-saturate in the blues and greens, but keep f*cking that chicken about plasma's being inferior product :)

Tired old excuse is tired and old. I'm reminded of people who rave about how vinyl is the only real way to listen to music. The picture and color quality of LED TVs is just fine. Tweak it a little from factory default and any TV looks perfectly acceptable. I'm totally sure your plasma TV has less motion blurring than my LED set with 240 Hz refresh rate...

Honest Bender: ijason: plasma tvs have better contrast ratios, greater brightness, and less motion blurring than LCDs, LEDs have untrue color recreation compared to plasma tvs... tending to over-saturate in the blues and greens, but keep f*cking that chicken about plasma's being inferior product :)

Tired old excuse is tired and old. I'm reminded of people who rave about how vinyl is the only real way to listen to music. The picture and color quality of LED TVs is just fine. Tweak it a little from factory default and any TV looks perfectly acceptable. I'm totally sure your plasma TV has less motion blurring than my LED set with 240 Hz refresh rate...

my "tired excuse" is that plasma tvs surpass LCDs on refresh rate, color accuracy, and better brightness? interesting argument.

i'm glad that your adjusted tv looks "perfectly acceptable", but that doesn't disprove that LCD displays are prone to biasing their color balance towards blues and greens. i was especially disappointed to hear that a lot of the oLED screens really suffer from pronounced color shifting. it's like comparing the color accuracy of an old CRT display to a LCD. yes, the LCD is perfectly acceptable and takes up a lot less space... but the CRT does display colors more accurately.

the blacks on plasmas are also truer than LCDs. the LED/LCDs are improving on that and bridging the gap.

average refresh rate for plasmas, even older, is 600hz. i don't know if your point was that 240hz should be sufficient for anyone, or whether you think that 240 is higher than 600?

i'm really not sure if your point is that LCD panel displays work "well enough" that plasma's shouldn't be bought despite being cheaper and better... or what? i'd love to have a half-inch thick screen that only weighs 20lbs, but for me it's not worth the negatives of the LCDs

@honest bender.

this might help, http://www.cnet.com.au/plasma-vs-lcd-w hich-is-right-for-you-240036500. htm

really not trying to start a pissing match here with ya :) LCDs are doing a good job of catching up with plasma, but they're not yet there on a number of factors important to me when i was choosing a tv. when i first started shopping, i thought LCDs were better in every way than plasma, and was really surprised when i found out it isn't... so now i spread the word when i get the chance.

LCD/LED screens are supposed to be a huge step, but since most of those just use edge-lit instead of direct-lit, the only advantage over traditional LCDs is that the bulb lasts a lot longer and they use less electricity. no advantage in contrast ratio or true black tones.

once oLED gets the hiccups sorted out, i'm sure THAT technology is going to make everyone forget plasma or LCD ever existed; i keep reading about potentially twice the resolution of current displays, with complete color accuracy, and completely true black, all in a body about a third of an inch thick. sign me up!

Honest Bender: I'm totally sure your plasma TV has less motion blurring than my LED set with 240 Hz refresh rate...

I think you're trying to be facetious, and while 240 Hz is better than 60 Hz LCD, motion blur is not eliminated and Plasma is still better. In fact, witnessing motion blur on top of the line 240 Hz LCDs was one of the main reasons I went Plasma.

The only downside I have noticed with my plasma is image retention when using PC input (temporary, but still annoying). So ... LCD wins where gaming/PC input will be used due to image retention. For movies/TV only, Plasma wins.

ryanpd:
The only downside I have noticed with my plasma is image retention when using PC input (temporary, but still annoying). So ... LCD wins where gaming/PC input will be used due to image retention. For movies/TV only, Plasma wins.

i've only got a computer hooked up to my plasma and haven't noticed anything i'd describe as "image retention"... are you describing a ghost following moving objects? i had that exact problem with an older LCD... it was due to the cable i was using. it was originally being served through a 30' VGA cable, when i moved equipment and switched to a 6' HDMI the ghosting was no-longer present.

i haven't heard anything described as image retention... i wonder if your tv has some kind of fancy processing it's trying to do due to the pc input. have you tried using a dsub/vga or HDMI instead?

/only have used HDMI on the new plasma, with no ghosting or anything.

Try this one, it's a bed and breakfast.
Link

I've stayed there.

Where does one find Scraps of Plasma TVs and Hot tubs? And once you have them.... how do you put them together?

Where are all the assholes from last week who said those two kids didn't have a real tree house?