How much money for one year in Asia???

Are we getting personal, Thomas? Your ancestor's behaviour in Europe
in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wasn't the most pleastant either but you
don't see ME mentioning that here in the original debate, now do you?

What was wrong with their behaviour then ?

There you go, my point exactly. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Are we getting personal, Thomas? Your ancestor's behaviour in Europe
in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wasn't the most pleastant either but you
don't see ME mentioning that here in the original debate, now do you?

What was wrong with their behaviour then ?

There you go, my point exactly. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Manfred Aigner wrote in message . at...

20$/day (that is $600/month) is still much more than the average income
in most of the countries the original poster will visit, so why
shouldn't it be possible to live and travel there?

As I see it the issue isn't 'is it possible' it's 'is it a good idea'.
Most seasoned travelers have had really great experiences on low
budgets; but also most seasoned travelers (if they'll admit it) more
than once on that low budget trip wished they had a few extra bucks
for something, maybe a particular attraction, a ferry ride to a really
cool island you heard about, or something like that. The more money
you have, the more options you have, plain and simple. This isn't to
say you don't have a lot of options when traveling on a low budget; in
SE Asia you certainly do. But you have more options when you have more
cash reserves. I say budget $20/day, but have at least $50 in funds
just in case.

John W.

Manfred Aigner wrote in message . at...

20$/day (that is $600/month) is still much more than the average income
in most of the countries the original poster will visit, so why
shouldn't it be possible to live and travel there?

As I see it the issue isn't 'is it possible' it's 'is it a good idea'.
Most seasoned travelers have had really great experiences on low
budgets; but also most seasoned travelers (if they'll admit it) more
than once on that low budget trip wished they had a few extra bucks
for something, maybe a particular attraction, a ferry ride to a really
cool island you heard about, or something like that. The more money
you have, the more options you have, plain and simple. This isn't to
say you don't have a lot of options when traveling on a low budget; in
SE Asia you certainly do. But you have more options when you have more
cash reserves. I say budget $20/day, but have at least $50 in funds
just in case.

John W.

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:18:37 GMT, Thomas F. Unke
wrote:

me writes:


Are we getting personal, Thomas?

You got personal, yes.


When did I do that? When I stated my opinion 20$ a day is plenty to
travel around Asia? Please enlighten me.

Your ancestor's behaviour in Europe
in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wasn't the most pleastant either but you
don't see ME mentioning that here in the original debate, now do you?

I see your problems.

Now do you, really? And do you see what your own problem is? Could it
mayeb be the German superiority complex?

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 13:18:37 GMT, Thomas F. Unke
wrote:

me writes:


Are we getting personal, Thomas?

You got personal, yes.


When did I do that? When I stated my opinion 20$ a day is plenty to
travel around Asia? Please enlighten me.

Your ancestor's behaviour in Europe
in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wasn't the most pleastant either but you
don't see ME mentioning that here in the original debate, now do you?

I see your problems.

Now do you, really? And do you see what your own problem is? Could it
mayeb be the German superiority complex?

me kirjoitti:

Are we getting personal, Thomas? Your ancestor's behaviour in Europe
in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wasn't the most pleastant either but you
don't see ME mentioning that here in the original debate, now do you?



What was wrong with their behaviour then ?



There you go, my point exactly. Congratulations. You should be proud.



I guess few people are aware on your "point". Germans are known about
their good behaviour.

me kirjoitti:

Are we getting personal, Thomas? Your ancestor's behaviour in Europe
in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wasn't the most pleastant either but you
don't see ME mentioning that here in the original debate, now do you?



What was wrong with their behaviour then ?



There you go, my point exactly. Congratulations. You should be proud.



I guess few people are aware on your "point". Germans are known about
their good behaviour.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:38:14 +0300, Markku Grönroos
wrote:

me kirjoitti:

Are we getting personal, Thomas? Your ancestor's behaviour in Europe
in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wasn't the most pleastant either but you
don't see ME mentioning that here in the original debate, now do you?



What was wrong with their behaviour then ?



There you go, my point exactly. Congratulations. You should be proud.



I guess few people are aware on your "point". Germans are known about
their good behaviour.


Huh? Seriously now, really? Where I live they certainly aren't. Mind
you, they're not hated or something (they make damn fine cars and
tasty sausages) but people sure are aware of the past around here.

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 17:38:14 +0300, Markku Grönroos
wrote:

me kirjoitti:

Are we getting personal, Thomas? Your ancestor's behaviour in Europe
in 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 wasn't the most pleastant either but you
don't see ME mentioning that here in the original debate, now do you?



What was wrong with their behaviour then ?



There you go, my point exactly. Congratulations. You should be proud.



I guess few people are aware on your "point". Germans are known about
their good behaviour.


Huh? Seriously now, really? Where I live they certainly aren't. Mind
you, they're not hated or something (they make damn fine cars and
tasty sausages) but people sure are aware of the past around here.