Originally Posted by
barracuda93
Looks like you either didn't read my reply or failed to understand it
On the contrary, I understand what you said perfectly well.
Originally Posted by
barracuda93
Once again, you argue with your projections. I never claimed to be a photographer. Yes, I take photos, for myself. Who doesn't now? This is neither my job nor primary interest. It's also a weird assumption that each and every photographer must be interested in temples, otherwise he is a hypocrite.
You claimed to take photographs, hence a photographer. Who said you need to be primarily interested in temples? Talk about projection. Ha!!!
Originally Posted by
barracuda93
Well, how people at all make a decision of going to some new place? There are always plenty of places they never been to. And they, as a matter of fact, do not have direct experience of either. Also, there is no lack of information nowadays. It is well possible to have a judgement based on facts even without a personal experience of the place. And I never claimed my opinion about Cambodia is something more than that.
Except your judgement is not based upon facts but assumptions.
Originally Posted by
barracuda93
Look, from what I read and see online, Cambodia sucks as a whole. I do not expect PP to be like Singapore or Bangkok. My expectations are low. The only reason I at all consider going there is just to make some difference and put a checkmark "Cambodia done". I would actually be surprised if I happen to like it.
I live in Asia long enough to be able to imagine how crappy a place can be. After extensive travels in India – and no, not to Taj Mahal and Rishikesh – hardly some place can really shock me. So please, there is really no need to try scare me with images of traffic jams and occasional street theft, as if that is exclusive to PP.
Ah, to say you've been there. Check. One of those. Clarity. Thanks for that.
Where did I say you'd like Cambodia? Do tell because I generally argue the place sucks.
Originally Posted by
barracuda93
Angkor is based on the same pattern (vastu) as any other old Hindu temple. Of course an expert in architecture would easily spot Khmer specifics, but I am not one (moreover, I doubt you happen to be one, given your weird statement), so yes, it's just another old Hindu temple, I have seen dozens of those and time to time still visit some.
Contrary to what you said above, I love certain temples. But why should I want to go to Angkor specifically? Because it's a part of the popular with masses touristic routine? Because it's huge? Because it's very much advertised? No, thanks. I'd rather visit some smaller remote temples of Orissa and Northern Kerala.
OK, here's YOUR problem: You assume that the only temple is Angkor because it is the 'biggest', but Angkor Wat is but one structure. There are myriad temples of various shapes and sizes and conditions spread over a ridiculous area. Some suck, some are great, some crowded, some not, some morning, some afternoon. Your assessment is basic, pedestrian and yet cocksure because you've seen so many Hindu temples in India except you fail in your assessment because you speak of one temple.
You also claim Thailand to be better than Vietnam or Cambodia and yet have little to no experience with either. Talk about projections.