In article ,
(Deep Freud Moors) wrote:

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Deep Freud Moors) wrote:

Two days to "do" (gotta love the quotation marks - truly speaks
volumes!)
London?

David Horne's comments are wise IMHO. Isn't much of the problem here
the
concept of "doing" places, as if it were not possible to get
satisfaction
and enjoyment from only partially experiencing a city?

It's certainly true that the concept of "doing" a place makes some
people
roll their eyes. I would never claim to have done a place, because it
suggests that there is nothing more to see there. And for a place like
London, a couple of days to see the place could only result in a very
rushed
few glances at a few things. I can't imagine that being enjoyable or
satisfying.

Nor I, when "rushed" is introduced. But a couple of days in London could
also result in a few leisurely visits to a few things; say, for the sake
of argument, a couple of the smaller museums, a Thames cruise, a night at
the theatre and a nice meal or two.

Isn't "to see the place" just a longer form of "do"?

(I don't mean to flog a dead horse, but I'm really not sure if we are
agreeing here!)