Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

The New Seven Wonders of the World

124»

Posts

  • Low KeyLow Key Registered User
    edited July 2007
    So, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask- how come Mount Rushmore, doesn't get any talking up from Americans at all? Does it actually look kinda shabby? Does everyone just hate South Dakota?

    I just feel like, if our country had gone to all the effort of beating four giant stone presidents into the landscape without dying of embarassment, we would want to talk about it more. But no one seems to give a shit about Mount Rushmore, except in that one Macauly Culkin movie.

    Low Key on
  • dlinfinitidlinfiniti Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Low Key wrote: »
    So, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask- how come Mount Rushmore, doesn't get any talking up from Americans at all? Does it actually look kinda shabby? Does everyone just hate South Dakota?

    I just feel like, if our country had gone to all the effort of beating four giant stone presidents into the landscape without dying of embarassment, we would want to talk about it more. But no one seems to give a shit about Mount Rushmore, except in that one Macauly Culkin movie.

    cause if you asked any american to choose their top 4 you probably wouldnt get very many teddy roosevelts

    dlinfiniti on
    AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Just for the record, my voting criteria was "Hrrm, which is the most pretty thing?"

    Petra wins that, hands down in my opinion.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Aldo wrote: »
    Fallingman wrote: »
    I dont get why the Taj isnt doing well. That BBC article says its because India isnt voting... But surely that wouldn't be what its about? I mean I wouldn't have thought that just because you were from The US or Aussie, you'd vote for the Opera House or the Statue of Liberty...

    Hmmm.
    India is kind of infamous for being nationalistic, you know...

    I vote for the statue of liberty seven times.

    Shinto on
  • GoodOmensGoodOmens Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Low Key wrote: »
    So, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask- how come Mount Rushmore, doesn't get any talking up from Americans at all? Does it actually look kinda shabby? Does everyone just hate South Dakota?

    I don't think it's that people hate South Dakota, it's that people don't really think it exists. But I'll be able to tell you more in August; my wife and I are going there as part of our vacation, because she's got this strange thing about visiting all 50 states before she's 35.

    GoodOmens on
    steam_sig.png
    IOS Game Center ID: Isotope-X
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    My parents visited Mount Rushmore and were disappointed. They said it looked bigger in the pictures they'd seen prior to going.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • Mr BubblesMr Bubbles David Koresh Superstar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Stonehenge is a really, really dull thing

    Mr Bubbles on
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I was super keen on seeing it when I first came over to England. Now that I've seen it... Meh.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • Mr BubblesMr Bubbles David Koresh Superstar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Personally, Salisbury Cathedral is much more impressive and only about five miles away from Stonehenge

    724px-Salisbury_Cathedral.jpg

    Mr Bubbles on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Depending on how the materials are used, yes it would still impress people. You made a false dichotomy comparing something with actual artistic quality to a piece of shit and claimed that it was so much better because it was so old and therefore more difficult to put up. The fact that Trojan's Column survived as long as it has and took a shitload of people to create is rather impressive, but something beind really old alone is hardly an awe inspiring feat.
    So, you admit that the effort that goes into the construction is a factor?

    Well, anything that takes that many sculptors that long to produce is going to warrant some gawking time. Every aspect of it is a factor. However, you seem to be putting a great deal of importance on the number of slaves with winches it took to construct as if that makes it inherently superior to something built with a real crane.

    moniker on
  • tuxkamentuxkamen Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I actually know the woman who discovered Petra!

    So obviously Petra deserves to be on it.

    Seriously though, it's an amazing place, even though I've only seen photos. A bunch of buildings carved into soft stone, a meter-wide entrance way that opens into a city... it's really really awesome.

    ...I'm surprised that nobody called out this nonsense. Even I know that the person who discovered Petra was not a 200-plus-year-old transgender. :p

    tuxkamen on

    Games: Ad Astra Per Phalla | Choose Your Own Phalla
    Thus, the others all die before tuxkamen dies to the vote. Hence, tuxkamen survives, village victory.
    3DS: 2406-5451-5770
  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Mr Bubbles wrote: »
    Personally, Salisbury Cathedral is much more impressive and only about five miles away from Stonehenge
    *pic-snip*

    And it has the Magna-Carta (the "good" one apparently... the lady that worked there assured me) and whats assumed to be the worlds oldest clock.

    But I still like Stonehenge. Given its age, it has the edge. And the mystery surrounding it gives it that "wonder" edge. There's not much that makes me "wonder" about the statue of liberty.

    Fallingman on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • SkannerJATSkannerJAT Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Mr Bubbles wrote: »
    Personally, Salisbury Cathedral is much more impressive and only about five miles away from Stonehenge
    *pic-snip*

    And it has the Magna-Carta (the "good" one apparently... the lady that worked there assured me) and whats assumed to be the worlds oldest clock.

    But I still like Stonehenge. Given its age, it has the edge. And the mystery surrounding it gives it that "wonder" edge. There's not much that makes me "wonder" about the statue of liberty.


    What would be really badass would be the government letting people excavate the area. I love all the old rumors of stairs uncovered a while back. Do they even let people past the fence anymore? I mean besides the ritualistic druids.

    Mr. Bubbles- That place looks freaking sweet. I could see myself visiting there more then a few times.

    SkannerJAT on
  • Mr BubblesMr Bubbles David Koresh Superstar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    SkannerJAT wrote: »
    Fallingman wrote: »
    Mr Bubbles wrote: »
    Personally, Salisbury Cathedral is much more impressive and only about five miles away from Stonehenge
    *pic-snip*

    And it has the Magna-Carta (the "good" one apparently... the lady that worked there assured me) and whats assumed to be the worlds oldest clock.

    But I still like Stonehenge. Given its age, it has the edge. And the mystery surrounding it gives it that "wonder" edge. There's not much that makes me "wonder" about the statue of liberty.


    What would be really badass would be the government letting people excavate the area. I love all the old rumors of stairs uncovered a while back. Do they even let people past the fence anymore? I mean besides the ritualistic druids.

    Mr. Bubbles- That place looks freaking sweet. I could see myself visiting there more then a few times.
    At Stonehenge they let people run riot on the place during the solstice but other than that theres a rope fence. Which keeps people out. And is made of rope. I don't understand the logic there

    Salisbury is a pretty awesome place to visit really
    SalisburyMarket20040724_CopyrightKaihsuTai.jpg
    One of the Cathedral entrances
    424px-Salisbury_Cathedral_West_Front.jpg
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salisbury_Cathedral

    Mr Bubbles on
  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Low Key wrote: »
    So, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask- how come Mount Rushmore, doesn't get any talking up from Americans at all? Does it actually look kinda shabby? Does everyone just hate South Dakota?

    I just feel like, if our country had gone to all the effort of beating four giant stone presidents into the landscape without dying of embarassment, we would want to talk about it more. But no one seems to give a shit about Mount Rushmore, except in that one Macauly Culkin movie.

    Rushmore looks pretty impressive. I think it's weakness is that all you can do is look at it. You can't get too close to it, touch, go inside of it. There's no interaction, I suppose would be the summary of why it isn't nominated. And South Dakota isn't that bad, it's just not Florida when it comes to tourist traps.

    Capt Howdy on
    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Mr Bubbles wrote: »
    Personally, Salisbury Cathedral is much more impressive and only about five miles away from Stonehenge

    724px-Salisbury_Cathedral.jpg

    I think I walked around the... uh... is that pointy thing a steeple? Whatever the hell that thing is. I walked around that like, fifteen years ago, when it was undergoing renovation/repairs/whatever. I think.

    I saw like fifty fucking cathedrals. They all kind of started looking the same after number four. But that one looks familiar.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • DagrabbitDagrabbit Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    Low Key wrote: »
    So, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask- how come Mount Rushmore, doesn't get any talking up from Americans at all? Does it actually look kinda shabby? Does everyone just hate South Dakota?

    I just feel like, if our country had gone to all the effort of beating four giant stone presidents into the landscape without dying of embarassment, we would want to talk about it more. But no one seems to give a shit about Mount Rushmore, except in that one Macauly Culkin movie.

    Rushmore looks pretty impressive. I think it's weakness is that all you can do is look at it. You can't get too close to it, touch, go inside of it. There's no interaction, I suppose would be the summary of why it isn't nominated. And South Dakota isn't that bad, it's just not Florida when it comes to tourist traps.

    No, but they have Wall Drug, lots of Reptile Gardens, and Geuine 1888 Cowboy Towns. Driving across SD to get to Rushmore was quite the experience in roadside billboarding.

    Dagrabbit on
  • Andrew_JayAndrew_Jay Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Mr Bubbles wrote: »
    Personally, Salisbury Cathedral is much more impressive and only about five miles away from Stonehenge.
    I thought the same thing.

    Huge cathedral, copy of the Magna Carta (the way I understand it is that there is no "original" copy - they just had several dozen copies on hand at its signing), some kind of archaic clock, plus those cool carvings of the saints and other biblical figures out front.
    I saw like fifty fucking cathedrals. They all kind of started looking the same after number four. But that one looks familiar.
    Finally, the truth comes out. Loren was driven to atheism by sheer boredom :P

    Andrew_Jay on
  • Capt HowdyCapt Howdy Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Dagrabbit wrote: »
    Capt Howdy wrote: »
    Low Key wrote: »
    So, I figure this is as good a place as any to ask- how come Mount Rushmore, doesn't get any talking up from Americans at all? Does it actually look kinda shabby? Does everyone just hate South Dakota?

    I just feel like, if our country had gone to all the effort of beating four giant stone presidents into the landscape without dying of embarassment, we would want to talk about it more. But no one seems to give a shit about Mount Rushmore, except in that one Macauly Culkin movie.

    Rushmore looks pretty impressive. I think it's weakness is that all you can do is look at it. You can't get too close to it, touch, go inside of it. There's no interaction, I suppose would be the summary of why it isn't nominated. And South Dakota isn't that bad, it's just not Florida when it comes to tourist traps.

    No, but they have Wall Drug, lots of Reptile Gardens, and Geuine 1888 Cowboy Towns. Driving across SD to get to Rushmore was quite the experience in roadside billboarding.

    Word, Walldrug like a motherfucker! Yeah, the 200 miles of visit Walldrug billboards is ludicrous. Especially when you get to Wall; all they have for fast food is Subway, and they take cash only. No ATM nearby, just so you know. Sucks ass when you decide that should be your stopping point and have a fierce craving greasey cow flesh and hot stopping fried potatoes strings. Also if you use a debit card, like most modern people.

    Capt Howdy on
    Steam: kaylesolo1
    3DS: 1521-4165-5907
    PS3: KayleSolo
    Live: Kayle Solo
    WiiU: KayleSolo
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited July 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Depending on how the materials are used, yes it would still impress people. You made a false dichotomy comparing something with actual artistic quality to a piece of shit and claimed that it was so much better because it was so old and therefore more difficult to put up. The fact that Trojan's Column survived as long as it has and took a shitload of people to create is rather impressive, but something beind really old alone is hardly an awe inspiring feat.
    So, you admit that the effort that goes into the construction is a factor?

    Well, anything that takes that many sculptors that long to produce is going to warrant some gawking time. Every aspect of it is a factor. However, you seem to be putting a great deal of importance on the number of slaves with winches it took to construct as if that makes it inherently superior to something built with a real crane.

    It's my opinion that the effort underwent by the culture which built the thing, the time and energy and perseverance which they put into it, is a significant factor in how impressive the construction is (significant i.e. it comes behind things like appearance and design, but before scale). With higher technology, the time and effort required go down, so the other factors have to go up to leave it equally awe-inspiring.

    Aroused Bull on
  • SkannerJATSkannerJAT Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    Depending on how the materials are used, yes it would still impress people. You made a false dichotomy comparing something with actual artistic quality to a piece of shit and claimed that it was so much better because it was so old and therefore more difficult to put up. The fact that Trojan's Column survived as long as it has and took a shitload of people to create is rather impressive, but something beind really old alone is hardly an awe inspiring feat.
    So, you admit that the effort that goes into the construction is a factor?

    Well, anything that takes that many sculptors that long to produce is going to warrant some gawking time. Every aspect of it is a factor. However, you seem to be putting a great deal of importance on the number of slaves with winches it took to construct as if that makes it inherently superior to something built with a real crane.

    It's my opinion that the effort underwent by the culture which built the thing, the time and energy and perseverance which they put into it, is a significant factor in how impressive the construction is (significant i.e. it comes behind things like appearance and design, but before scale). With higher technology, the time and effort required go down, so the other factors have to go up to leave it equally awe-inspiring.

    Where do we factor in the use of slave labor?

    SkannerJAT on
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Mr Bubbles wrote: »
    Personally, Salisbury Cathedral is much more impressive and only about five miles away from Stonehenge
    724px-Salisbury_Cathedral.jpg

    I think I walked around the... uh... is that pointy thing a steeple? Whatever the hell that thing is. I walked around that like, fifteen years ago, when it was undergoing renovation/repairs/whatever. I think.

    I saw like fifty fucking cathedrals. They all kind of started looking the same after number four. But that one looks familiar.

    Is it just me, or does that look like a number of different buildings jammed together? To my eye, the pointy thing doesn't even look like the same style.

    jothki on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited July 2007
    jothki wrote: »
    Is it just me, or does that look like a number of different buildings jammed together? To my eye, the pointy thing doesn't even look like the same style.
    Well, it's a cathedral. It was probably built over several centuries and different architectural styles. Except for the steeple, it actually looks pretty homogeneous.

    Aroused Bull on
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Does anyone else feel the Christ the Redeemer statue shouldn't have been voted on there? It seems like this is just something that got really big in Brazil and other hardcore Catholic countries, so it got enough votes, but really is nowhere near as large of an achievement as the other stuff.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    jothki wrote: »
    Is it just me, or does that look like a number of different buildings jammed together? To my eye, the pointy thing doesn't even look like the same style.
    Well, it's a cathedral. It was probably built over several centuries and different architectural styles. Except for the steeple, it actually looks pretty homogeneous.

    Actually, most cathedrals were built rather quickly. Within a single century more often than not. The most important ones had political issues with local vicars and the papacy squaring off over who should be the architect and such or people who made decisions dieing off (which is why the Vatican took so damn long) and being replaced by someone who wanted it all different.

    Regardless, if you want to go with a cathedral you have to go with Chartres. It does span different styles, Romanesque to early Gothic (its actually the first real example of Gothic) and is just damn impressive. Hell, it was funded by the King of England while he was actively at war with France, the country it occupies.

    moniker on
  • AldoAldo Hippo Hooray the swamp, always the swampRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Cathedral of Prague is mighty impressive as well.

    Aldo on
    Elendil wrote: »
    said Aldo hazily, before clop-clop-clopping out of the room
  • TehSpectreTehSpectre @PixelateJake on TwitterRegistered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Does anyone else feel the Christ the Redeemer statue shouldn't have been voted on there? It seems like this is just something that got really big in Brazil and other hardcore Catholic countries, so it got enough votes, but really is nowhere near as large of an achievement as the other stuff.
    Isn't it the biggest religious statue in the world, or is it just the biggest statue of Christ in the world?

    None the less, Lupin stole it, so it must be worth being there. :P

    TehSpectre on
    Sloth_Sig.png
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I think we're overanalyzing the term "Wonder". Basically what are the 7 things in the world most to inspire awe and wonder upon those who gaze upon it.

    Now, the Christ the Redeemer statue appeals to a lot of Christians due to it being a large and impressive sized statue of their Saviour on a hill side, overlooking a city. With the arms held wide open, it symbolizes Christ looking out and protecting his followers. Is it not surprising that so many people would vote for it?

    Now, with the Statue of Liberty, alot of Americans would gaze in wonder at it, as it's a symbol of the American Way, Libery and Justice for all, huzzah! However, a good portion of the world may look at that symbol and think it a symbol of the negative attributes that they ascribe to Americans. Hence, not too many people outside the states would vote for it.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • darthhkdarthhk Registered User
    edited July 2007
    ... suck?

    darthhk on
  • MivonksMivonks Registered User
    edited July 2007
    The Cat wrote: »
    Zalbinion wrote: »
    ***No offense to Australia! The opera house is fantastic, I'm just pointing out that it's already famous.

    Its pretty, but its not actually a very good opera house, in the functional sense. Small and cramped, apparently. I think if something is going to be a wonder, it has to actually work well.

    No offense taken, I'm sure. Most of the people I know are perplexed as to why the opera house should be on the list! I mean ... it's pretty, but ... O_o

    The Sydney Harbour Bridge should have been included instead as it is the world's widest long-span bridge, tallest steel arch bridge, and fourth longest spanning arch bridge.

    And the fact that the opera house sucks on the inside? The architect, Jørn Utzon, left in a huff when it came around to doing the interiors. ;-)

    Mivonks on
    but it was so much easier ... when I was cruel
  • FirstComradeStalinFirstComradeStalin Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    saint2e wrote: »
    I think we're overanalyzing the term "Wonder". Basically what are the 7 things in the world most to inspire awe and wonder upon those who gaze upon it.

    Now, the Christ the Redeemer statue appeals to a lot of Christians due to it being a large and impressive sized statue of their Saviour on a hill side, overlooking a city. With the arms held wide open, it symbolizes Christ looking out and protecting his followers. Is it not surprising that so many people would vote for it?

    Now, with the Statue of Liberty, alot of Americans would gaze in wonder at it, as it's a symbol of the American Way, Libery and Justice for all, huzzah! However, a good portion of the world may look at that symbol and think it a symbol of the negative attributes that they ascribe to Americans. Hence, not too many people outside the states would vote for it.

    The Statue of Liberty represents a nation opening its arms to the downtrodden of the world, and really only that quality. If there was a McDonald's logo or some bullshit slapped on there with some nukes strapped onto it, then yeah, I'd look at it and think "God, those fat, warmongering Americans." But that's not the case.

    The Christ the Redeemer does evoke awe, but really not the same amount as the Statue of Liberty, simply because it's not as much of an achievement and hasn't been there as long (which, in the Statue of Liberty's case is a major advantage because it welcomed such a huge amount of people for so long)

    If you're implying that anti-American sentiment had something to do with the Statue of Liberty not being voted for, then you're probably right. Regardless of the truth, people will vote with a feeling of nationalistic pride. This poll was mainly focused towards and participated in by people from Europe and South America, places that are overwhelmingly Catholic and very anti-American. But I'm sure that if this was conducted only in America, then places like Petra would not have made it.

    That's why this is really a meaningless survey, because in reality it takes unbiased professionals to make decisions as large as this. It just aggravates me that people will now constantly brag about stuff like this anyway.

    FirstComradeStalin on
    Picture1-4.png
  • saint2esaint2e Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    That was exactly what I was saying.

    saint2e on
    banner_160x60_01.gif
  • SmellsLikeSmellsLike Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I never liked the idea of a survey to come up with the new wonders.

    For me the seven wonders represent a purpose to visit a place. So you wouldn't normally feel inspired to go visit that place, but reading about the wonder makes you want to go.

    So the Statue of Liberty wouldn't be a wonder to me because there's all sorts of reasons to go to New York. Same with that big Jesus statue or even the Sydney Opera House. Uluru/Ayers rock qualifies for me as I wouldn't go anywhere near Alice Springs unless that existed. Easter Island statues are the same. I think Machu Pichu qualifies too as I couldn't find a reason to go to Peru. But seeing and reading about Machu Picu make me want to go.

    SmellsLike on
  • SkannerJATSkannerJAT Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    SmellsLike wrote: »
    I never liked the idea of a survey to come up with the new wonders.

    For me the seven wonders represent a purpose to visit a place. So you wouldn't normally feel inspired to go visit that place, but reading about the wonder makes you want to go.

    So the Statue of Liberty wouldn't be a wonder to me because there's all sorts of reasons to go to New York. Same with that big Jesus statue or even the Sydney Opera House. Uluru/Ayers rock qualifies for me as I wouldn't go anywhere near Alice Springs unless that existed. Easter Island statues are the same. I think Machu Pichu qualifies too as I couldn't find a reason to go to Peru. But seeing and reading about Machu Picu make me want to go.

    In that case I vote any casino in Atlantic City. If it wasn't for being able to gamble you wouldn't catch me dead in Jersey.

    SkannerJAT on
  • Aroused BullAroused Bull Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Mivonks wrote: »
    The Sydney Harbour Bridge should have been included instead as it is the world's widest long-span bridge, tallest steel arch bridge, and fourth longest spanning arch bridge.
    Sydney's Harbour Bridge is boring and average, in spite of any records it might hold. There are much more impressive bridges available.
    SmellsLike wrote: »
    I never liked the idea of a survey to come up with the new wonders.

    For me the seven wonders represent a purpose to visit a place. So you wouldn't normally feel inspired to go visit that place, but reading about the wonder makes you want to go.

    So the Statue of Liberty wouldn't be a wonder to me because there's all sorts of reasons to go to New York. Same with that big Jesus statue or even the Sydney Opera House. Uluru/Ayers rock qualifies for me as I wouldn't go anywhere near Alice Springs unless that existed. Easter Island statues are the same. I think Machu Pichu qualifies too as I couldn't find a reason to go to Peru. But seeing and reading about Machu Picu make me want to go.
    What if you took two wonders and put them in one city? Would they cancel each other out? If a country emerges from civil war and suddenly becomes much more desirable as a holiday destination, does their former wonder cease to be, since people now want to go there for other things?

    Aroused Bull on
  • MivonksMivonks Registered User
    edited July 2007
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    Sydney's Harbour Bridge is boring and average, in spite of any records it might hold. There are much more impressive bridges available.

    Oh I agree totally! But if the list organisers had to have an Aussie entrant, they were better off going with that Sydney landmark. ;)

    Or they could have just gone with the Big Pineapple. ;-)

    Mivonks on
    but it was so much easier ... when I was cruel
  • SmellsLikeSmellsLike Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    SmellsLike wrote: »
    I never liked the idea of a survey to come up with the new wonders.

    For me the seven wonders represent a purpose to visit a place. So you wouldn't normally feel inspired to go visit that place, but reading about the wonder makes you want to go.

    So the Statue of Liberty wouldn't be a wonder to me because there's all sorts of reasons to go to New York. Same with that big Jesus statue or even the Sydney Opera House. Uluru/Ayers rock qualifies for me as I wouldn't go anywhere near Alice Springs unless that existed. Easter Island statues are the same. I think Machu Pichu qualifies too as I couldn't find a reason to go to Peru. But seeing and reading about Machu Picu make me want to go.
    What if you took two wonders and put them in one city? Would they cancel each other out? If a country emerges from civil war and suddenly becomes much more desirable as a holiday destination, does their former wonder cease to be, since people now want to go there for other things?[/QUOTE]

    You got a good point about the two wonders. I don't think they'd cancel each other out. I also agree that their former wonder ceases to be if the palce is desirable as a holiday destination. The way you put the question makes it sound silly as an object can't lose its wonder. But this list's definition of wonder is jeez, I came all this way just to see this thing.
    So I'd put Victoria Falls on the list too as people would go to Zimbabwe, with all the crap happening there, just to see it.
    Hoover Dam would get on there too. I saw that on an Industrial Wonders of the world documentary series. Amazing huge looking thing.

    SmellsLike on
  • SmellsLikeSmellsLike Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Mivonks wrote: »
    ArrBeeBee wrote: »
    Sydney's Harbour Bridge is boring and average, in spite of any records it might hold. There are much more impressive bridges available.

    Oh I agree totally! But if the list organisers had to have an Aussie entrant, they were better off going with that Sydney landmark. ;)

    Or they could have just gone with the Big Pineapple. ;-)

    Big Bannana man. Original and the best. Also the only reason I went to coffs harbour. Picked up a map of Big things to ("Big Things in a Big Country" the poster is called) visit that is pride of place on the toilet door.

    SmellsLike on
124»
Sign In or Register to comment.