"Australia and New Zealand"
 

Why do European and American travellers feel it necessary to visit both
Australia and NZ? As if Australia&NZ is one country.

I think people look at a map and see an opportunity to tick off another
country on their list of places they have been.

If you have always dreamed of visiting Australia, why not spend the
extra time and money there instead of going to NZ as well? Australia is
a huge country with much to see.

I'm not against going to NZ at all... but I wonder how many visitors
have really haboured a real desire to go there. Ask yourself... would
you go to NZ if you weren't going to Australia? Only if the answer is
"yes" should you go to NZ. Otherwise it will just be a stupid, shallow
appendage to your trip.


When I go to London, I can see how easy it would be to see Paris as
well. But I don't... why? Because I am not a Francophile. It would be a
fun yet shallow experience. Better for me to spend the extra time and
money getting to know London in more depth.

They're far, far away from most Northern Hemisphere residents - so likely to
be visited just the once in most lifetimes!! Go for both!!

Sound thinking IMHO!




"windsor" wrote in message
...
Why do European and American travellers feel it necessary to visit both
Australia and NZ? As if Australia&NZ is one country.

I think people look at a map and see an opportunity to tick off another
country on their list of places they have been.

If you have always dreamed of visiting Australia, why not spend the extra
time and money there instead of going to NZ as well? Australia is a huge
country with much to see.

I'm not against going to NZ at all... but I wonder how many visitors have
really haboured a real desire to go there. Ask yourself... would you go to
NZ if you weren't going to Australia? Only if the answer is "yes" should
you go to NZ. Otherwise it will just be a stupid, shallow appendage to
your trip.


When I go to London, I can see how easy it would be to see Paris as well.
But I don't... why? Because I am not a Francophile. It would be a fun yet
shallow experience. Better for me to spend the extra time and money
getting to know London in more depth.

They're far, far away from most Northern Hemisphere residents - so likely to
be visited just the once in most lifetimes!! Go for both!!

Sound thinking IMHO!




"windsor" wrote in message
...
Why do European and American travellers feel it necessary to visit both
Australia and NZ? As if Australia&NZ is one country.

I think people look at a map and see an opportunity to tick off another
country on their list of places they have been.

If you have always dreamed of visiting Australia, why not spend the extra
time and money there instead of going to NZ as well? Australia is a huge
country with much to see.

I'm not against going to NZ at all... but I wonder how many visitors have
really haboured a real desire to go there. Ask yourself... would you go to
NZ if you weren't going to Australia? Only if the answer is "yes" should
you go to NZ. Otherwise it will just be a stupid, shallow appendage to
your trip.


When I go to London, I can see how easy it would be to see Paris as well.
But I don't... why? Because I am not a Francophile. It would be a fun yet
shallow experience. Better for me to spend the extra time and money
getting to know London in more depth.

windsor wrote:
Why do European and American travellers feel it necessary to visit both
Australia and NZ? As if Australia&NZ is one country.

I think this is not the typical case. We have been on four trips to Oz
and met many other overseas tourists. Hardly any of them were also
visiting NZ. Same story for other Dutch people travelling to Oz.

I did 2 seperate visits and I live in Canada but agree that if you only have
one chance you might be tempted to do the Oz/Kiwi combo
I saw more of NZ than Oz so plan to go back to Oz

"windsor" wrote in message
...
Why do European and American travellers feel it necessary to visit both
Australia and NZ? As if Australia&NZ is one country.

I think people look at a map and see an opportunity to tick off another
country on their list of places they have been.

If you have always dreamed of visiting Australia, why not spend the extra
time and money there instead of going to NZ as well? Australia is a huge
country with much to see.

I'm not against going to NZ at all... but I wonder how many visitors have
really haboured a real desire to go there. Ask yourself... would you go to
NZ if you weren't going to Australia? Only if the answer is "yes" should
you go to NZ. Otherwise it will just be a stupid, shallow appendage to
your trip.


When I go to London, I can see how easy it would be to see Paris as well.
But I don't... why? Because I am not a Francophile. It would be a fun yet
shallow experience. Better for me to spend the extra time and money
getting to know London in more depth.

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 18:28:46 +1000, windsor wrote:

Why do European and American travellers feel it necessary to visit both
Australia and NZ? As if Australia&NZ is one country.

I think people look at a map and see an opportunity to tick off another
country on their list of places they have been.

If you have always dreamed of visiting Australia, why not spend the
extra time and money there instead of going to NZ as well? Australia is
a huge country with much to see.

I'm not against going to NZ at all... but I wonder how many visitors
have really haboured a real desire to go there. Ask yourself... would
you go to NZ if you weren't going to Australia? Only if the answer is
"yes" should you go to NZ. Otherwise it will just be a stupid, shallow
appendage to your trip.


I have spent a total of 8 weeks visiting New Zealand and have yet to
spend a day in Australia. I could spend another 8 weeks in NZ, with
little duplication of places visited, and still not feel it necessary
to spend time in Australia. I prefer New Zealand, but I also do not
care to take trips that are little more than "bragging" visits (Oh,
yes I passed through there in '99). I prefer to get to know a place a
bit and spend time meeting people, walking around and taking it easy.
Australia is a very large place that I feel would take up to a year to
fully experience properly. I also prefer green to brown, mountains
instead of hills, not having to worry about snakes and a cooler
climate. Frankly, although I have had pleasant enough short visits
with Australians, I prefer the company of New Zealanders. Different
Strokes, etc.

Charles
nzvideos.org

windsor wrote:

Why do European and American travellers feel it necessary to visit both
Australia and NZ? As if Australia&NZ is one country.

I think people look at a map and see an opportunity to tick off another
country on their list of places they have been.

If you have always dreamed of visiting Australia, why not spend the
extra time and money there instead of going to NZ as well? Australia is
a huge country with much to see.

I'm not against going to NZ at all... but I wonder how many visitors
have really haboured a real desire to go there. Ask yourself... would
you go to NZ if you weren't going to Australia? Only if the answer is
"yes" should you go to NZ. Otherwise it will just be a stupid, shallow
appendage to your trip.


When I go to London, I can see how easy it would be to see Paris as
well. But I don't... why? Because I am not a Francophile. It would be a
fun yet shallow experience. Better for me to spend the extra time and
money getting to know London in more depth.






For people who are making a once in a lifetime trip and who have time to
visit both, then making a combined vacation to both New Zealand and
Australia makes sense if you are going to travel all that distance
across the Pacific for North Americans. Or the ever farther flight to
the far side of the globe for Europeans.

If this isn't an once in a life time vacation for you, then you might as
well break it up and visit each country on separate trips.

ALV

Just to say re NZ there's a brand new series about the country from Billy
Connely next week on BBC 1. If it's anything like his World Tour of
Australia it's definatly a must see minus the pointless stand up routine
which has nothing to do with the tour

Just to say re NZ there's a brand new series about the country from Billy
Connely next week on BBC 1. If it's anything like his World Tour of
Australia it's definatly a must see minus the pointless stand up routine
which has nothing to do with the tour

What a lot of arrogant bs!

You dare to say what people should or should not do on their holidays. As
for "shallow experiences". Not everyone desires to know a country in
"depth" . And it's fairly obvious why people like to see both countries
just as it's common knowledge that travellers do NOT always visit both.