Originally Posted by
stimpy
You are stretching the argument to a ridiculous extreme and bringing in your own nonsense. No one is talking about walking across the Sahara here. That is truly ridiculous. I am saying that if you go to visit Bhutan, or some other place where you have never been and is probably quite foreign to you, and you have a guide showing you all around, that is simply not an adventure. An adventure is, by definition, hazardous.
actually, these blanket statements were extremely clear >
Originally Posted by
stimpy
Originally Posted by
uncertaintraveler
Honestly, I don't understand how, if visiting a place requires a tour guide or the use of a tour group, one's visit is at all adventurous.
I
agree completely
Originally Posted by
stimpy
Originally Posted by
Kagehitokiri
so... a walking safari with lions, elephants, rhinos, etc and no gun or guide?
or perhaps "wandering around" kashmir or myanmar without speaking the language or having a guide?
and things like going to the north pole, climbing mount everest, or crossing the sahara -
definitely not adventurous with a guide.
It's not for everyone, but that is the way
I like it. Yes! And I would maintain that it simply
isn't adventure if you go with a
guide. IMO of course.
BTW, who said "no gun"?
personally, i dont think blanket statements ever work.