|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/16/2007 06:48:12 PM · #201 |
Born in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwea!)
Lived in Lisbon, Portugal (of portuguese stock! Viva Portugal!!!)
Lived in Madrid, Spain (have spanish blood also!)
Now reside in England.
Been to:
france
germany (work)
finland (work)
holland (work)
belgium (work)
tahiti (work)
fiji (work)
new caledonia (work)
vanuatu (work)
solomon islands (work)
papua new guinea (work)
phillipines (work)
australia (work)
singapore (work)
Gibralta
Would love to go to:
japan
china
galapagos islands
new zealand
india
Sri Lanka
cook islands
tasmania
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 13:18:14. |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 06:49:23 PM · #202 |
| missed one - will be including italy in has been come march next year! Yippy!!! |
|
|
|
12/16/2007 09:41:50 PM · #203 |
I'm not sure I agree with you Salmiakki. If they don't have separate representation in the U.N., they're not separate countries. Separate governing bodies and different legal systems don't cut it either because every one of our 50 states in the U.S. has its own separate governing body and its own legal system. Though, like Scotland, Wales and England, they are all also joined by a common central (federal) government. Sounds like they are just different entitites within one country.
Originally posted by salmiakki:
They are four separate countries,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own governing bodies. Scotland also has it's own legal system, which is very different in many ways to the legal system in England and Wales. So although there is the main governing body in London, these are all separate countries.
Originally posted by silverscreen:
neither Scotland nor Wales are UN members (but The United Kingdom is) it seems to be the correct definition.
Ireland on the other hand is a republic and a member of the UN.
(unless of course you are talking about Northern Ireland which is a part of the United Kingdom too).
Originally posted by salmiakki:
No. Four seperate countries.
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Falc:
England,
Scotland,
Wales,
Ireland,
|
Aren't those all the same place? :P |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12/16/2007 10:10:23 PM · #204 |
24% of all world countries according to facebook.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 12:26:06 AM · #205 |
Of course you and Silverscreen are absolutely correct, but in the context of this discussion, which is about travel, I still contend they are quite separate countries and for the purpose of travel should be considered separately.
As someone who has lived in the US for a number of years and as a Brit myself, I can assure you it is VERY annoying to hear people tell you they have been to England when in fact, what they mean is they have visited Britain. Even as a citizen of the UK myself, I would say that I have not visited the United Kingdom, only Great Britain, as I have never been to Northern Ireland.
I'm not normally one to quote Wikipedia, but in this instance I thought this described the situation in the UK rather well.
Constituent Countries
British Embassy US
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
I'm not sure I agree with you Salmiakki. If they don't have separate representation in the U.N., they're not separate countries. Separate governing bodies and different legal systems don't cut it either because every one of our 50 states in the U.S. has its own separate governing body and its own legal system. Though, like Scotland, Wales and England, they are all also joined by a common central (federal) government. Sounds like they are just different entitites within one country.
Originally posted by salmiakki:
They are four separate countries,
Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have their own governing bodies. Scotland also has it's own legal system, which is very different in many ways to the legal system in England and Wales. So although there is the main governing body in London, these are all separate countries.
Originally posted by silverscreen:
neither Scotland nor Wales are UN members (but The United Kingdom is) it seems to be the correct definition.
Ireland on the other hand is a republic and a member of the UN.
(unless of course you are talking about Northern Ireland which is a part of the United Kingdom too).
Originally posted by salmiakki:
No. Four seperate countries.
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Falc:
England,
Scotland,
Wales,
Ireland,
|
Aren't those all the same place? :P |
|
|
|
|
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 00:41:17. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:34:22 AM · #206 |
Ok, I can accept that. I like the "constituant country" explanation. And you make an excellent point that they are at least different-enough to be considered separately for travel purposes. I'm switching sides on this question.
Originally posted by salmiakki:
Of course you and Silverscreen are absolutely correct, but in the context of this discussion, which is about travel, I still contend they are quite separate countries and for the purpose of travel should be considered separately.
As someone who has lived in the US for a number of years and as a Brit myself, I can assure you it is VERY annoying to hear people tell you they have been to England when in fact, what they mean is they have visited Britain. Even as a citizen of the UK myself, I would say that I have not visited the United Kingdom, only Great Britain, as I have never been to Northern Ireland.
I'm not normally one to quote Wikipedia, but in this instance I thought this described the situation in the UK rather well.
Constituent Countries
British Embassy US |
Message edited by author 2007-12-17 04:36:32. |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 04:39:20 AM · #207 |
Originally posted by xianart:
careful, mark. some people have truly travelled to all these places. you're right, there is a difference between traveller and tourist. but, don't assume that someone's a tourist just because they've been to a lot of places - it is possible to visit many countries and also have a meaningful experience of said country. |
You are right. But why are you assuming that I am assuming that someone's a tourist just because they've been to a lot of places? I am not even assuming consistency here. I Myself have travelled quite a lot. Some places I have just visited, others I have experienced (sometimes even when I went there as a tourist).
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
Dumb post. Sounds like jealousy to me. |
You have every right to use the simple explanation in order not to think about what I might mean. ;)
Originally posted by Kavey:
I'm assuming, given the wink at the end, that this is tongue in cheek but... I just want to say that not all of us travel in that awful "if it's Tuesday this must be Belgium" style!
For city breaks especially we prefer to stay anywhere between 3 days and a week in the same place (we spent 6 nights in Venice on the first trip and 5 on the second).
When touring we nearly always design our own itineraries so that we can take our time rather than hop to a new place every night. For example, we took 5 weeks to tour South Africa a couple of years back but even with that length of time, didn't try and cover everything.
Whilst some people do have a tendency to visit one place in one country and tick it off on their master list, some of us do like to spend a little longer exploring and enjoying a destination wherever possible! |
You're right. I am not saying anyone who has travelled a lot, must be of the "if it's Tuesday this must be Belgium" type. I am not even saying that is a bad thing (I am implying it though). I am just trying to say that the number of countries one has been to doesn't mean anything in terms of being well-travelled. Some may have travelled 20 countries and only have seen holiday resorts, some may have travelled 5 and have experienced them fully.
These lists are fun, and may bring back great memories, just don't make the error to think they mean anything. :)
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 05:02:33 AM · #208 |
This one really annoys me. It reminds of 1988 when I was living in France. During Easter break, I bought a Eurail Pass and spent 18 days touring around France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. I didn't spend very long in any one place; but I have wonderful memories of that trip. I enjoyed seeing the topography change from one region to the next and the obvious differences in architecture, food and atmosphere in different cities. When I returned to France, a French woman I knew asked me about the trip. When I told her of all the places I'd been in 18 days, she answered: "You saw nothing!" For the last 19 years I have recalled that comment as ignorant and mean-spirited. This current quote reminds me vividly of that. Granted, it's true that, for example, changing planes in Country X as you travel on to Country Y doesn't really count (in my mind, anyway). But this remark about pittying people for not adequately experiencing places they visit is arrogant.
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Having been somewhere means nothing, the question is whether you experienced a country. I have been to Iran for instance, but haven't left my hotel when I was there. Is that well-travelled? I wouldn't say so. And how about those tourist groups that hop of a bus, take a view snaps and move on to the next? 10 European countries in two weeks, are they well-travelled? And how about someone who lists 'Africa' under 'countries traveled'? Would you think that person experienced Africa? No way!
Don't hate people for having been to so many countries, pitty them for not having experienced them. ;) |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 05:35:39 AM · #209 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by Falc:
England,
Scotland,
Wales,
Ireland,
|
Aren't those all the same place? :P |
Most definitely not the same place, just ask the Welsh or the Scots, and don't even think about asking that question of the Irish ;-)
Almost added 'The Socialist Republic of South Yorkshire' hehe!! |
|
|
|
12/17/2007 05:43:54 AM · #210 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
This one really annoys me. It reminds of 1988 when I was living in France. During Easter break, I bought a Eurail Pass and spent 18 days touring around France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. I didn't spend very long in any one place; but I have wonderful memories of that trip. I enjoyed seeing the topography change from one region to the next and the obvious differences in architecture, food and atmosphere in different cities. When I returned to France, a French woman I knew asked me about the trip. When I told her of all the places I'd been in 18 days, she answered: "You saw nothing!" For the last 19 years I have recalled that comment as ignorant and mean-spirited. This current quote reminds me vividly of that. Granted, it's true that, for example, changing planes in Country X as you travel on to Country Y doesn't really count (in my mind, anyway). But this remark about pittying people for not adequately experiencing places they visit is arrogant.
|
Sounds like a great trip, and I say this without any irony. Travelling on public transport is a nice way to experiency a country. I am realy puzzled why you are making such a big deal out of something that does not apply to you. And even if it would apply, why let it bother you for 19 years? If YOU enjoyed it, that's fine. It was YOUR trip, not hers (nor mine). Don't let some ignorant French woman ruin your great experience. (and don't blame me for reminding me of a memory that I did not create ;) )
And please, do note the wink after the 'pitty' sentence. I put it there on purpose.
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 06:34:59 AM · #211 |
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
You're right. I am not saying anyone who has travelled a lot, must be of the "if it's Tuesday this must be Belgium" type. I am not even saying that is a bad thing (I am implying it though). I am just trying to say that the number of countries one has been to doesn't mean anything in terms of being well-travelled. Some may have travelled 20 countries and only have seen holiday resorts, some may have travelled 5 and have experienced them fully.
These lists are fun, and may bring back great memories, just don't make the error to think they mean anything. :) |
Oh I agree 100% - these lists are nothing more than a bit of fun to see which places lots of people have visited, which places are less popular, which people have similar travel enthusiasms as our own and which do not...
Despite my long list, I tend to prefer a much slower pace of travel to many... hence having spent 11 days in Venice so far but hoping to return again for more.
I often find people asking why we're returning to somewhere we've already been (especially when we went back to Botswana and Namibia for a second time and more recently, I've just booked a return trip to Antarctica) and my response is that one hasn't "done" a country, or even a city, just because one's been to a few parts of it! There's often more to see and experience.
I can't tell you how many times I've been to France but my love affair with the country is still going strong!
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 12:10:38 PM · #212 |
Mark: Ok, you're right. Especially about the French woman. But I do love France and French women in general.
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
This one really annoys me. It reminds of 1988 when I was living in France. During Easter break, I bought a Eurail Pass and spent 18 days touring around France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. I didn't spend very long in any one place; but I have wonderful memories of that trip. I enjoyed seeing the topography change from one region to the next and the obvious differences in architecture, food and atmosphere in different cities. When I returned to France, a French woman I knew asked me about the trip. When I told her of all the places I'd been in 18 days, she answered: "You saw nothing!" For the last 19 years I have recalled that comment as ignorant and mean-spirited. This current quote reminds me vividly of that. Granted, it's true that, for example, changing planes in Country X as you travel on to Country Y doesn't really count (in my mind, anyway). But this remark about pittying people for not adequately experiencing places they visit is arrogant.
|
Sounds like a great trip, and I say this without any irony. Travelling on public transport is a nice way to experiency a country. I am realy puzzled why you are making such a big deal out of something that does not apply to you. And even if it would apply, why let it bother you for 19 years? If YOU enjoyed it, that's fine. It was YOUR trip, not hers (nor mine). Don't let some ignorant French woman ruin your great experience. (and don't blame me for reminding me of a memory that I did not create ;) )
And please, do note the wink after the 'pitty' sentence. I put it there on purpose. |
|
|
|
|
12/17/2007 02:24:53 PM · #213 |
Originally posted by OmanOtter:
This one really annoys me. It reminds of 1988 when I was living in France. During Easter break, I bought a Eurail Pass and spent 18 days touring around France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Italy. I didn't spend very long in any one place; but I have wonderful memories of that trip. I enjoyed seeing the topography change from one region to the next and the obvious differences in architecture, food and atmosphere in different cities. When I returned to France, a French woman I knew asked me about the trip. When I told her of all the places I'd been in 18 days, she answered: "You saw nothing!" For the last 19 years I have recalled that comment as ignorant and mean-spirited. This current quote reminds me vividly of that. Granted, it's true that, for example, changing planes in Country X as you travel on to Country Y doesn't really count (in my mind, anyway). But this remark about pittying people for not adequately experiencing places they visit is arrogant.
Originally posted by mark_u_U:
Having been somewhere means nothing, the question is whether you experienced a country. I have been to Iran for instance, but haven't left my hotel when I was there. Is that well-travelled? I wouldn't say so. And how about those tourist groups that hop of a bus, take a view snaps and move on to the next? 10 European countries in two weeks, are they well-travelled? And how about someone who lists 'Africa' under 'countries traveled'? Would you think that person experienced Africa? No way!
Don't hate people for having been to so many countries, pitty them for not having experienced them. ;) |
|
It boils down to what you are travelling for.
Do you want to cross things off of a list, snap pics etc.?
Or do you want to truly visit a place and learn what it is all about.
Why are you so upset by that distinction?
I've done both and I can tell you that I much rather enjoy slipping into the beat of a place and having it affect me rather than simply passing through.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 06:26:57 PM · #214 |
Originally posted by flip89:
Philippines (native)
Australia (NSW, Canberra, Melbourne)
Japan
Singapore
Fiji
New Zealand (2 1/2 years grad studies)
USA (current residence, only about 16 more states to go)
Netherlands
Belgium
Germany
France
Luxembourg
Canada
Wish list:
complete my US tour: Vermont, New Hampshire, Montana, Oregon, the Dakotas, Alaska and New Mexico especially
Asia: China and Thailand
Europe: Greece, Portugal, Spain and Russia
South America: Ecuador
North/Central America: Mexico, Costa Rica
Africa: Ethiopia and Eritrea
And back to New Zealand again. |
Striking Spain out from the wish list. I just spent ten days there over the Christmas break. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 07:39:30 PM · #215 |
Where I've spent my life - I think im lucky:
United States, most of my 24 years - (~24 of 50 states, mainly east coast)
Denmark, for work (as a landscaper :D) - 4 months
Poland, visiting family - 3 Months
Caribbean, vacations - 6-7 weeks total - (DR, PR, Caymans, Bermuda, Bahamas, Antigua, St John, St Lucia, Jamaica, Martinique)
Mexico, vacations - 5 weeks total
Italy, studied abroad - 4 weeks
Canada, camping/fishing - (Ontario, Quebec) - 2 Weeks total
Netherlands, foggy vacation :P - 5 days
Spain, vacation - 4 Days
France, vacation - 2.5 weeks
Monaco, dinner, gambling, pretending i belong there - 1 day
Sweden, for fishing/lunch - half a day
England, multiple layovers - 6 hours
Man, I wish I could go back to all these places with my d2H... acquired it too late in my life.
Thats close to a full year :)
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 08:02:37 PM · #216 |
Wow!! You guys have had some adventures!!
I have only been to:
US:
Tennessee
Florida
Texas
Louisiana
Massachusets
New York
Alabama
Pennsylvania
Mississippi
California
Arkansas
Kentucky
Michigan
Georgia
(Yes, I am a true southern who only ventures north on occasion... even then I wasn't sure if they would let me back across the Mason Dixon line without a passport) LOL
and, I have been to Mexico.
I want to go to:
Venice
Australia
Italy
Ireland
That's it :) |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 08:05:13 PM · #217 |
Oh, and regarding the discussion below, I agree with Omanotter and Ive definitely heard (and resent) things like that from snobbish people, something to the effect of "Oh you didn't see Italy, you need 4 years to see Italy, no a lifetime, maybe 3 lifetimes". Sure. You can't completely understand a place in a week or two but that doesn't mean you can't try and build towards something. And realistically not many people are afforded the opportunity to spend extended periods of time abroad. Your attitude matters the most i feel.
I think the distinction to be drawn is that between a tourist and a traveler. The former has a list of sites to see and is not interested in the life experience or history of foreign natives, while the latter seeks exactly that - a peek at what its like to exist in another corner of the earth.
Actually, I think the hobby of photography is the perfect accompaniment to traveling. For me at least, it forces me to slow down and observe, and just take in your surroundings. Sit down at a cafe, grab a beer or coffee, take your time. I love doing that more than anything. Just walking around without a real plan.
|
|
|
|
01/09/2008 11:04:44 PM · #218 |
Originally posted by AP:
I think the distinction to be drawn is that between a tourist and a traveler. |
As someone who has not permanently lived in my home country in a dozen years, I find the distinction interesting... After a long time, when do you become a non-traveler vs. a resident of nowhere or a resident of where you have been for a while? How do I reconcile my passport vs. where I am vs. where I think of home - they can be different :-).
I have been both a traveler and tourist in different places and loved both and hated both but they are certainly different experiences. When I am a tourist, I understand that and know I am missing a significant part of the experience but you don't have time to spend months everywhere.
On the other hand, I would hate to have missed some of the places I have spent almost no time visiting.... hell, I've had a blast in some places I have spent less then 24hrs visiting that I would never trade. Some people are happy to do only the 20 countries in 3 hour thing and thats fine - it's fun and I have been there too. |
|
|
|
01/09/2008 11:20:29 PM · #219 |
South Africa
Lesotho
Tanzania
United Kingdom
- Engalnd, Wales, Scotland, Northen Ireland (and Cornwall)
Ireland
France
Switzerland
Poland
Germany
Austria
Nepal
Sweden
Peru
United States
Greece
Denmark
Singapore
Malaysia
Indonesia
Australia
China (Hong Kong)
New Zealand
Cambodia
Philippines
List does not cover the many countries I have sat in transit or passed through in a bus.
Over the next year or two I expect to take in Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and maybe Bhutan. Looking forward to it.
Message edited by author 2008-01-09 23:24:23. |
|
|
|
02/08/2008 02:05:46 PM · #220 |
Regarding the above discussion about what it takes to "be" in a place...I was in Germany for one week but it was the week the Wall came down. I was in Czechoslovakia when they privatized business. I was in Yugoslavia when the tanks rolled in. I was in Finland during the World Ice Hockey Championship games and cheered with the locals (even though they got beat.) So define "Being" in a place.
I'm comfortable saying I have been to and in and with the following places:
England (lived there and traveled from there)
Scotland
Wales
Ireland
Northern Ireland
France
Spain
Portugal
Morocco
Monaco
Italy
Greece
Turkey
Bulgaria
Romania
Yugoslavia (when it was still one country)
Hungary
Czechoslovakia (when it was one)
Poland
Austria
Switzerland
Germany
Belgium
The Netherlands
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Finland
Canada (British Columbia, Alberta, Onterio, Nova Scotia, and Prince Edward Island)
Mexico
Australia
New Zealand
Palau
St. Kitts
St. Lucia
St. Martin (and St. Maarten)
Barbados
British Virgin Islands
Tortola and Virgin Gorda
And 43 states, plus Guam, Puerto Rico, and US Virgin Islands
I'm currently plotting a trip to Bhutan. I would LOVE to hear from anyone who has been there.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2008 01:51:13 PM · #221 |
Ahhh, this is my addiction as well as my career :)
Australia
New Zealand
Indonesia
Malaysia/Borneo
Thailand
Cambodia
Laos
Vietnam
Hong Kong
Macau
China
Singapore
USA
Canada
Hawaii
England
Ireland
Scotland
Wales
Spain
France
Germany
Netherlands
Austria
Czech Republic
Italy
Estonia
Romania
Switzerland
Sweden
Luxembourg
Belgium
Libya
Egypt
Jordan
Syria
Japan
South Korea
North Korea
Next...
A goodly amount of time throughout South America! And more of Eastern Europe :) |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 01:48:15 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 01:48:15 PM EDT.
|
