On May 1, 8:54 am, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:
> Make credence recognised that on Tue, 01 May 2007 06:24:16 -0400,
> Shawn Hirn <[email protected]> has scripted:
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
> >> Shawn Hirn wrote:
> >> > In article <290420070130048983%[email protected]>, RPS <[email protected]>
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>I realize it is a vague kind of question, but I know nothing about Rome
> >> >>and need to decide, for how many days to break journey there. So any
> >> >>guidance is appreciated.
>
> >> >>Allowing one day for jet-lag and to orient ourselves, how many days at
> >> >>minimum are needed to get see Rome?
>
> >> > Definitely a vague question. How many days you need depends on what you
> >> > want to see. You could easily spend a year in Rome and not see all that
> >> > it has to offer. I suggest you get a good travel guidebook to see what
> >> > the options are. Rick Steves has a book that would interest you because
> >> > he gives ideals for people who have only a certain number of days to
> >> > spend in Rome.
>
> >> Yes, Rick Steves has a book about it. However, there are better books.
> >> Steves is a bit overrated, and take his advice with a grain of salt.
>
> >What book would you recommend?
>
> All of them have there flaws. I use Lonely Planet out of familiarity
> adn habit, Let's Go is popular, and there's also Routard. I dunno
> anything much about Rick Steves, except people either like him or
> loath him.


Time Out are the best for individual cities. They are written for
residents rather than tourists, so they have loads of stuff off the
tourist trail that the other guidebooks don't have.

Rough Guides is the best all-Europe guide. They have good maps, good
information on history and culture, feature sights off the beaten
track, and are very good on the little details that while not flashy
are very important, like exactly which trains you can get out of a
city.

Let's Go is a good guidebook if you intend to stay in roach-infested
dormitories and eat cafeteria food and McDonald's, and drink beer with
other Americans instead of actually seeing or experiencing anything.
If your budget is more than $10 a day, get a real guidebook and don't
use Let's Go.

Lonely Planets are really hit and miss. They put out literally
hundreds of different books, and employ a huge number of writers so
the quality really varies. Part of the problem is that their least
experienced writers get countries like France and Italy while the
experienced ones are busy working on books for Zambia and Bangladesh.
Regardless of how good the individual writers are, Lonely Planet's
maps almost always suck, and they are very poor at things like train
connections. Also, they try too hard to be comprehensive and include
everything, and as a result give only superficial coverage to the
places 95% of people actually go to.

Rick Steves is written for 55-year olds who have never left the US
before. There's nothing in there you wouldn't get from a tour
brochure.

"Iceman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected] ups.com...
>
> <snip>
>
> Rick Steves is written for 55-year olds who have never left the US
> before. There's nothing in there you wouldn't get from a tour
> brochure.
>

Well, I find Rick Steves useful on occasion and I've been to Europe several
times and to Rome enough so I'd have to stop and count on my fingers to
figure out how many times. My husband has relatives who live in Rome.

Rick Steves would be useful to the OP precisely because he has an opinion on
what are the most important sights. Now I might not totally agree with him,
and I consult other guidebooks, particularly the green Michelin guides,
which also rate sights. But if you have limited time in a place like Rome,
it's helpful knowing what somebody thinks are the must-sees. In addition to
other useful information Rick Steves provides.

Marianne

Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
wrote:

: Erm, they were war zones. I don't think Rome is quite in that league
: yet.

I am not sure if NYC, London, Madrid, and Bali would have qualified as
official "war zones" before terror attacks. Anyway, since when has it
been impossible for people to get hurt outside such zones?

Newbie wrote:
> : So, if I wanted to visit Spain, and there were ETA terrorist attacks,
> : Americans would be more in danger, because they are Americans?
>
> Risk is by nature uncertain. Insurance companies are fabulously rich
> precisely because most fears of most people do not come to pass.

Why would Americans be more in danger for being American, when there are
terrorist attacks by ETA? Do you think they believe the US is
preventing the Basques from being independent of Spain?

Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:

: Why would Americans be more in danger for being American,
: when there are terrorist attacks by ETA? Do you think they
: believe the US is preventing the Basques from being independent
: of Spain?

This is not my argument, but I think the other poster made it quite
clear that his concern is Islamic terrorism.

Why should Americans worry? Well, when was the last time a crowd in
Tehran chanted "Death to Switzerland"?

Ajanta wrote:

> Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
>
> : Why would Americans be more in danger for being American,
> : when there are terrorist attacks by ETA? Do you think they
> : believe the US is preventing the Basques from being independent
> : of Spain?
>
> This is not my argument, but I think the other poster made it quite
> clear that his concern is Islamic terrorism.

His statement didn't limit terrorism to Islamic terrorism.

Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:

: His statement didn't limit terrorism to Islamic terrorism.

I hesitate to add to an OT debate that almost hijacked my thread, but
this is from a post above:

"...proximity to Middle East, growth of Jihadi cells, as well as the
likelihood of bigger mess in Iraq and a US attack on Iran..."

Seems reasonable to assume he is worrying about Islamic terrorism.

OK, let's get back to other travel issues.

Make credence recognised that on 1 May 2007 06:29:13 -0700, Iceman
<[email protected]> has scripted:

>Lonely Planets are really hit and miss. They put out literally
>hundreds of different books, and employ a huge number of writers so
>the quality really varies. Part of the problem is that their least
>experienced writers get countries like France and Italy while the
>experienced ones are busy working on books for Zambia and Bangladesh.
>Regardless of how good the individual writers are, Lonely Planet's
>maps almost always suck,

I agree, their maps are very often complete shite. I have been lost a
number of times due to a bit too much faith in them.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Make credence recognised that on Tue, 01 May 2007 15:42:19 GMT, Newbie
<[email protected]> has scripted:

>Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
>wrote:
>
>: Erm, they were war zones. I don't think Rome is quite in that league
>: yet.
>
>I am not sure if NYC, London, Madrid, and Bali would have qualified as
>official "war zones" before terror attacks. Anyway, since when has it
>been impossible for people to get hurt outside such zones?

I burnt my finger tonight cooking dinner. Am I in a war zone?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:

> Make credence recognised that on Tue, 01 May 2007 15:42:19 GMT, Newbie
> <[email protected]> has scripted:
>
>
>>Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
>>wrote:
>>
>>: Erm, they were war zones. I don't think Rome is quite in that league
>>: yet.
>>
>>I am not sure if NYC, London, Madrid, and Bali would have qualified as
>>official "war zones" before terror attacks. Anyway, since when has it
>>been impossible for people to get hurt outside such zones?
>
>
> I burnt my finger tonight cooking dinner. Am I in a war zone?

I don't know, but if you were in Rome, you could put some gelato on it.

Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:

>Deeply Filled Mortician wrote:
>
>> Make credence recognised that on Tue, 01 May 2007 15:42:19 GMT, Newbie
>> <[email protected]> has scripted:
>>
>>
>>>Deeply Filled Mortician <deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>: Erm, they were war zones. I don't think Rome is quite in that league
>>>: yet.
>>>
>>>I am not sure if NYC, London, Madrid, and Bali would have qualified as
>>>official "war zones" before terror attacks. Anyway, since when has it
>>>been impossible for people to get hurt outside such zones?
>>
>>
>> I burnt my finger tonight cooking dinner. Am I in a war zone?
>
>I don't know, but if you were in Rome, you could put some gelato on it.

Are you on drugs?

In article <010520071124377343%[email protected]>, RPS <Nobody> wrote:
>Mike Hunt <postmaster@localhost> wrote:
>
>: His statement didn't limit terrorism to Islamic terrorism.
>
>I hesitate to add to an OT debate that almost hijacked my thread, but
>this is from a post above:
>
>"...proximity to Middle East, growth of Jihadi cells, as well as the
>likelihood of bigger mess in Iraq and a US attack on Iran..."
>
>Seems reasonable to assume he is worrying about Islamic terrorism.
>
>OK, let's get back to other travel issues.

Italy could be the center of a tit-for-tat if our president and vice
president decide to attack Iran. It's the wrong way to characterize
the worry as one about Islamic terrorism. One might choose to seize
the moment to show his or her courage. For others, it's about being
wise enough to avoid getting caught between a fight. If we attacked
another country without their planes, ships or soldiers coming near
our soil, then we'd be picking a fight. We'd be committing terrorism
against the Iranian people; so therefore don't think that they would
not retaliate against our terrorism tit-for-tat. It doesn't matter if
you're white and European-looking and therefore can't be distinguished
from many Italians of European descent. The retaliation the victim of
our attack can imagine will somehow connect the fact that Italians are
a bunch of Christians and Americans are also a bunch of Christians.

Is it an ideological thing? It could be. When people are desperate,
they can see thing that non-desperate don't. To see why it is even
possible, we need only remember that many Americans have supported our
unprovoked attack of Iraq because they are persuaded that the Iraqis,
being overwhelmingly Muslims, are somehow connected to bin Laden, and
therefore to terrorism. It's a two-way street. If we kill others by
association, religiously speaking, it's just fair that others also
might want to take revenge based on association, religiously speaking,
when we try to harm them.

In fact, poor Italy will be caught in the middle of a fight. When I
visited Italy in the early 1990s, I went in, did my business in one
day and got out the next, which included traveling from Rome to Naples
to Capri and back. I spent less than 3 days altogether. Today, the
world under Bush and Cheney is not normal. I wouldn't be so brave as
to travel to Europe, knowing that Bush and Cheney are the kind of men
who are sufficiently unstable to just launch another war, despite the
costs, the unpopularity, the gruesomeness, and the inhumanity. They
would use any excuse, an excuse du jour that would happen to strike
their fancy.

lo yeeOn
=======

lo yeeOn wrote:

>
> Italy could be the center of a tit-for-tat if our president and vice
> president decide to attack Iran.

The center?

> If we attacked
> another country without their planes, ships or soldiers coming near
> our soil, then we'd be picking a fight.

So, in your mind, attacking our civilians outside of our soil means we
can't attack? What about about the planes, ships, or soldiers not coming
near our soil, but near our military vessels or troops? What if they
decide to roll tanks into Poland and start murdering Jews?

We'd be committing terrorism
> against the Iranian people;

So, I take it that you would have been against attacking Germany as they
murdered millions of innocent people.

> In fact, poor Italy will be caught in the middle of a fight. When I
> visited Italy in the early 1990s, I went in, did my business in one
> day and got out the next, which included traveling from Rome to Naples
> to Capri and back. I spent less than 3 days altogether.

In one day and out the next, that normally would also be less than 2
days "altogether", since the absolute maximum of going in one day and
out the next would be exactly 2 days. What was your rush in the early
90's? I don't recall any terrorist attacks against Americans then.

Today, the
> world under Bush and Cheney is not normal. I wouldn't be so brave as
> to travel to Europe, knowing that Bush and Cheney are the kind of men
> who are sufficiently unstable to just launch another war, despite the
> costs, the unpopularity, the gruesomeness, and the inhumanity.

The world isn't normal just because of Bush and Cheney?
What is "normal" for the world?

On 1 May 2007 06:29:13 -0700, Iceman <[email protected]> wrote:

>Rough Guides is the best all-Europe guide. They have good maps, good
>information on history and culture, feature sights off the beaten
>track, and are very good on the little details that while not flashy
>are very important, like exactly which trains you can get out of a
>city.

Except that I've often found them to be wildly inaccurate. I took a
long detour once in Spain just so that I could travel along a road
that was described in Rough Guide as scenic, winding along a river
(the Tajo, I think). It instead wound past housing developments, junk
yards and billboards; I got two glimpses of water, which might have
been swimming pools for all I could tell. The road looked close to the
river on a map, and I'm pretty sure the author wrote that section
sitting at a desk looking at a map.

They also pointed me to a "hostal" in Madrid that was up five flights
of stairs; The last flight was of wood and so rotten that they worried
my engineer husband. Once again, I'm sure the author had never been
there. He probably made a few phone calls. I've never been steered so
badly by Let's Go.

>Let's Go is a good guidebook if you intend to stay in roach-infested
>dormitories and eat cafeteria food and McDonald's, and drink beer with
>other Americans instead of actually seeing or experiencing anything.
>If your budget is more than $10 a day, get a real guidebook and don't
>use Let's Go.

I've found excellent lodging bargains using Let's Go, and while some
were places I'm not likely to seek out in the future, their
descriptions were always accurate enough so that I knew what I was
getting into. They warned me, for instance, on an earlier trip, about
the stairs in a hostal in Segovia that was only on the second floor
(third floor American). Let's Go covers lodgings from youth hostels
to 1 or 2 star hotels, and has up-to-date price information instead
of the broad and inaccurate $$ categories used by Rough Guide and
Lonely Planet. (These guides don't publish new editions often enough
to have recent pricing information.)

>Lonely Planets are really hit and miss. They put out literally
>hundreds of different books, and employ a huge number of writers so
>the quality really varies. Part of the problem is that their least
>experienced writers get countries like France and Italy while the
>experienced ones are busy working on books for Zambia and Bangladesh.
>Regardless of how good the individual writers are, Lonely Planet's
>maps almost always suck, and they are very poor at things like train
>connections. Also, they try too hard to be comprehensive and include
>everything, and as a result give only superficial coverage to the
>places 95% of people actually go to.

Lonely Planet's Ireland guide had an egregious error when I used it.
The location they gave for the Galway international airport was
actually the location of a tiny airstrip that had nothing but charter
flights to the Aran Islands. Luckily I was only returning a rental
car, not catching a flight. The actual airport was on the opposite
side of Galway.

I've found Lonely Planet more useful in Asia than in Europe.

Let's Go is also pretty good at train and bus connections. Their
all-Europe guide has a map (or at least the 2001 edition had) with
approximate prices printed on tracts between major cities. It could
give a fairly accurate rough comparison of the cost of 2nd-class
tickets vs. a rail pass.

>Rick Steves is written for 55-year olds who have never left the US
>before. There's nothing in there you wouldn't get from a tour
>brochure.

Rick Steves is good for giving people the courage to strike out on
their own. He tends to over hype some places and has a very scanty
list of lodgings. So there's one guide we more or less agree on.

Most guides are revised about every five years. Look for a guide that
has the year printed in large typeface on the cover if you want
lodging or restaurant information. If you just want coverage of the
sights, this isn't as important. However, even then an up-to-date
guide is often worth while. The Rough Guide for Spain didn't warn me
that the villa and gardens at La Granja, near Segovia, was closed for
renovations, although I had the most recent edition and the villa had
been closed for over a year when I was there.


--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup

On Tue, 01 May 2007 12:46:47 +0200, Deeply Filled Mortician
<deepfreudmoors@eITmISaACTUALLYiREAL!l.nu> wrote:

>OK, place bets.
>
>Is this guy a troll, or just nuts?

It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I'm as likely to read
any of his future posts as I am the hostel spammer.
--
Barbara Vaughan
My email address is my first initial followed by my surname at libero dot it
I answer travel questions only in the newsgroup