The Tourist/Traveler Argument

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 10:34:40 +0200, Tim C.
wrote:

Following up to (Jim Ley) :

I can't really see it as something that comes up often though.

except every other day on r.t.e.

Only this week, and only 'cos there's nothing else to distract us...

Jim.

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:22:24 -0700, Citizen Ted
wrote:

Traveler: independent minded soul equipped with a guidebook and a
sense of adventure.

Tourist: Someone who has overcome their xenophobia only enough to
permit riding around in an hermetically-sealed tour bus, with
occasional excursions outside to McDonalds or KFC.

So I'm just back from Leiden, what I did there was sleep in a hotel,
eat food in cafes, drink beer and tap away at a computer.

Before that I was in London, what I did was sleep in a hotel, eat food
in cafes, drink beer and tap away at a computer.

1 month ago, I was on the Isle of Wight, I slept in a caravan, ate
food on the beach and in pubs drank beer, tapped away at a computer,
and drove around trying to map the place with a GPS.

3 months ago, I was in Jamaica, what I did was sleep in a guesthouse,
eat food in cafes, drink beer and tap away at a computer - oh yeah I
also went to a wedding.

3 1/2 months ago, I was in Nice, what I did was sleep in a hotel, eat
food in another hotel, drink beer, and tap away at a computer.

4 months ago, I was in Oslo, what I did was sleep on a mates sofa, eat
food, drink beer and tap away at the computer.

On all of them, some of that tapping was work, on only one of the
above did anyone other than myself pay for the travel, I had no
guidebooks in any of the above, not did I go on a tour bus. To your
definitions was I tourist or a traveller in each of the above cases
and why?

For me I was both always, travellers are just people who travels,
tourists are people who travel for pleasure, neither of the words have
anything to do with how you're travelling.

Jim.

(Jim Ley) wrote:

So I'm just back from Leiden, what I did there was sleep in a hotel,
eat food in cafes, drink beer and tap away at a computer.

Before that I was in London, what I did was sleep in a hotel, eat food
in cafes, drink beer and tap away at a computer.

1 month ago, I was on the Isle of Wight, I slept in a caravan, ate
food on the beach and in pubs drank beer, tapped away at a computer,
and drove around trying to map the place with a GPS.

3 months ago, I was in Jamaica, what I did was sleep in a guesthouse,
eat food in cafes, drink beer and tap away at a computer - oh yeah I
also went to a wedding.

3 1/2 months ago, I was in Nice, what I did was sleep in a hotel, eat
food in another hotel, drink beer, and tap away at a computer.

4 months ago, I was in Oslo, what I did was sleep on a mates sofa, eat
food, drink beer and tap away at the computer.

You give the impression that you didn't get out very much. That
suggests to me that you were neither traveller nor tourist, but a
temporarily relocated computer user.

You don't qualify for this thread.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:32:36 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

You give the impression that you didn't get out very much. That
suggests to me that you were neither traveller nor tourist, but a
temporarily relocated computer user.

get out where? I'm sitting outdoors in a cafe at the moment - I'm
using my computer, very little of any of the tapping away was indoors
- and if I wasn't tapping away I'd be reading whilst sitting in the
cafe instead. Are you saying that you're only allowed to travel
anywhere if when you get there you spend your time "seeing sites"
sitting in cafes is not allowable?

Jim.

Following up to (Jim Ley) :

sitting in cafes is not allowable?

That's the best bit sometimes. You can see the culture just walk past.
--
Tim C.

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:50:56 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

(Jim Ley) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 12:32:36 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

You give the impression that you didn't get out very much. That
suggests to me that you were neither traveller nor tourist, but a
temporarily relocated computer user.

get out where? I'm sitting outdoors in a cafe at the moment - I'm
using my computer, very little of any of the tapping away was indoors
- and if I wasn't tapping away I'd be reading whilst sitting in the
cafe instead.

You didn't mention getting out in the post to which I was responding.

I didn't mention staying in either, I am no longer in a cafe, I'm now
in a pub watching the cricket (going well too, if only I didn't have
to drive later), I don't see anything in my post which suggested I was
staying in, basically on all sorts of holidays I spend my time in
cafes.

I hope you don't think that I was being anything other than
light-hearted. If I offended you, I am sorry.

Don't be silly, this is r.t.e. if I could be offended, I wouldn't be
here.

Jim.

(Jim Ley) wrote:

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:50:56 +0100, Padraig Breathnach
wrote:

I hope you don't think that I was being anything other than
light-hearted. If I offended you, I am sorry.

Don't be silly, this is r.t.e. if I could be offended, I wouldn't be
here.

Okay, now I'm offended at the idea that you consider me silly.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:22:24 -0700, Citizen Ted
wrote:


Though I was tempted to weigh in on the Cathy L thread (+1000 posts
and counting), PTravel made a very nice post about his definitions of
tourist and traveler. I'd like to break out that discussion.

From PTravel, paraphrased:

Traveler: independent minded soul equipped with a guidebook and a
sense of adventure.
If you are going around with a guide book in a strange place,
you are a tourist. The locals will assess you as such, they may
differentiate you from the Escorted Guided Tourists following their
guide, but you are still a tourist.

Traveller in the UK anyway is used to define those gypsy and other
types that cannot abide being in one place for more than a few
days or weeks. In the USA they are called transients.



Tourist: Someone who has overcome their xenophobia only enough to
permit riding around in an hermetically-sealed tour bus, with
occasional excursions outside to McDonalds or KFC.

Bit of a snotty description, there some people too old to travel
alone, but still like to see other countries, also some others
like young people on their first visit.



I generally agree with his assessment, as the word "tourist" to me has
always meant "someone on a tour", and a tour is a guided visit to a
place. To me, a "traveler" is someone who "travels" - a person going
from point to point by various means with various intent. They may be
on holiday, going to a new work place, moving to a new home or just
drifting. But their interface with their journey is close to what
PTravel described with such brevity.

I've never been on a guided tour, so I can't say whether they are
stupid and dreadful, though I suspect they are.

Have been on quite a few, but prefer the go it yourself approach.
There are advantages, more free time as travel and hotel arrangements
are taken care of. Disadvantages like having to follow the set
itinerary of the tour.

he idea of being
cooped up on a bus with a bunch of unadventurous dorks while some paid
circus barker describes the history of a cathedral into a cheap bus PA
system is enough to make me want to burst out of my skin and start
screaming.
Actually some of the local guides can be very well educated
people doing it to eke out a living. They certainly know their
stuff in lots of areas.

ecause of this, I've never had any
interest in guided tours or their evil sister, cruise holidays. I
would consider taking a ship to a destination, but I would never stay
cooped up on some floating Las Vegas casino with 800 perfumed hogs. My
friend Dave just got back from his first cruise (Alaska) and hated it.
A good portion of the guests got sick with flu, including his wife and
father-in-law, who were both miserable the whole week. He enjoyed the
few day excursions on land and enjoyed views from the ship, but the
overall experience left him unsatisfied. Can't blame him. I'd have
gone bananas.

There are cruises like you describe, but the small boat experience
can be quite different. The Clipper Sailing ship we went on from
Singapore to the Andaman Islands and Thailand was very educational,
and very informal. Not a slot machine in sight, and you could help
with manning the ship, if so inclined.

I don't want to start a war of defined terms, but I do think that
tourists are not travelers, and travelers are not tourists. Tourists
have every right to cruise around in their buses and eat McDonalds
crud at every exotic location on Earth. I won't deny them that. In
fact, I encourage weak-willed folks who prefer such tours to stay on
their buses and lock into their international hotels, eat at KFC and
buy stupid trinkets outside cathedrals. This way, I'm less likely to
bump into their pasty, fat asses when I'm traveling.

Thank you.

- TR

On 1 Jun 2006 20:01:42 -0700, wrote:


Hatunen wrote:
On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:22:24 -0700, Citizen Ted
wrote:


Though I was tempted to weigh in on the Cathy L thread (+1000 posts
and counting), PTravel made a very nice post about his definitions of
tourist and traveler. I'd like to break out that discussion.

From PTravel, paraphrased:

Traveler: independent minded soul equipped with a guidebook and a
sense of adventure.

Tourist: Someone who has overcome their xenophobia only enough to
permit riding around in an hermetically-sealed tour bus, with
occasional excursions outside to McDonalds or KFC.

I generally agree with his assessment, as the word "tourist" to me has
always meant "someone on a tour", and a tour is a guided visit to a
place. To me, a "traveler" is someone who "travels" - a person going
from point to point by various means with various intent.

So we have the problem of what you, and some others, think
"tourist" means and what dictionaries record it as meaning, to
wit: someone who travels for pleasure. A "tour" was once just a
journey, e.g., the "Grand Tour" of Europe once taken by titled
young Brits and lasting months or even years, but the existence
of organized guided tours weems to have co-opted the word.


I don't want to start a war of defined terms,

Too late ...

but I do think that
tourists are not travelers, and travelers are not tourists.

No. Tourists travel for pleasure, while travelers may be
traveling on business.

Look, the point isn't whether you like my shorthand definitions, but
whether there is a real distinction between those who favor the tour
bus experience and those who prefer to explore on their on.

Of course there is a real distinction. But it isn't expressed by
the words "tourist" and "trave;ller".

Obviously,
I think there is and, clearly, a number of people agree. I didn't coin
"tourist vs. traveler" in this context, but if you're not happy with
it, then either come up with other terms or, better yet, address the
substance of the distinction.

Why do I ahve to come up with alternatives when you don't use the
language correctly?

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Thu, 01 Jun 2006 18:22:24 -0700, Citizen Ted
wrote:


Though I was tempted to weigh in on the Cathy L thread (+1000 posts
and counting), PTravel made a very nice post about his definitions of
tourist and traveler. I'd like to break out that discussion.

From PTravel, paraphrased:

Traveler: independent minded soul equipped with a guidebook and a
sense of adventure.

Tourist: Someone who has overcome their xenophobia only enough to
permit riding around in an hermetically-sealed tour bus, with
occasional excursions outside to McDonalds or KFC.

I generally agree with his assessment, as the word "tourist" to me has
always meant "someone on a tour", and a tour is a guided visit to a
place. To me, a "traveler" is someone who "travels" - a person going
from point to point by various means with various intent. They may be
on holiday, going to a new work place, moving to a new home or just
drifting. But their interface with their journey is close to what
PTravel described with such brevity.

I've never been on a guided tour, so I can't say whether they are
stupid and dreadful, though I suspect they are. The idea of being
cooped up on a bus with a bunch of unadventurous dorks while some paid
circus barker describes the history of a cathedral into a cheap bus PA
system is enough to make me want to burst out of my skin and start
screaming. To be "let out" to spend a few hours on my own is, to me,
humiliating and demeaning. Because of this, I've never had any
interest in guided tours or their evil sister, cruise holidays. I
would consider taking a ship to a destination, but I would never stay
cooped up on some floating Las Vegas casino with 800 perfumed hogs. My
friend Dave just got back from his first cruise (Alaska) and hated it.
A good portion of the guests got sick with flu, including his wife and
father-in-law, who were both miserable the whole week. He enjoyed the
few day excursions on land and enjoyed views from the ship, but the
overall experience left him unsatisfied. Can't blame him. I'd have
gone bananas.

I don't want to start a war of defined terms, but I do think that
tourists are not travelers, and travelers are not tourists. Tourists
have every right to cruise around in their buses and eat McDonalds
crud at every exotic location on Earth. I won't deny them that. In
fact, I encourage weak-willed folks who prefer such tours to stay on
their buses and lock into their international hotels, eat at KFC and
buy stupid trinkets outside cathedrals. This way, I'm less likely to
bump into their pasty, fat asses when I'm traveling.

Thank you.

- TR


I just looked up the word "obnoxious" in the dictionary. It seems a
lot of your names are listed there.

Cathy