From: bod on 22 Jun 2010 07:40 Adrian wrote: > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>>>>>> I thought caravans were for people wanting a holiday on the cheap. > >>>>>> Some folk prefer the freedom etc. Each to their own. > >>>>> "Freedom"? >>>>> >>>>> Apart from the inability to use many back roads, there's a lot less >>>>> caravan sites than there are B&Bs in touristy areas. > >>>> True, but when they can always unhitch the van and drive around as >>>> normal, once they are parked up on a site. > >>> Again, a reduction in freedom. When touring around an area, we rarely >>> stay in the same place two nights running. > >> Not everyone wants to do that though. Some like a base to return to, >> the same as if you had booked an hotel for a week or two. > > Indeed they may. But that's not "freedom", is it? That's a restriction on > freedom. If we're visiting an area, we don't know where we'll be that > evening. We don't necessarily even know which part of the area we'll be > in. We play it by ear. Drag a caravan along, and that freedom is not > available. > > They could always hitch up and move to another site. Bod
From: Adrian on 22 Jun 2010 07:49 bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: >>>>>>>> I thought caravans were for people wanting a holiday on the >>>>>>>> cheap. >>>>>>> Some folk prefer the freedom etc. Each to their own. >>>>>> "Freedom"? >>>>>> >>>>>> Apart from the inability to use many back roads, there's a lot less >>>>>> caravan sites than there are B&Bs in touristy areas. >>>>> True, but when they can always unhitch the van and drive around as >>>>> normal, once they are parked up on a site. >>>> Again, a reduction in freedom. When touring around an area, we rarely >>>> stay in the same place two nights running. >>> Not everyone wants to do that though. Some like a base to return to, >>> the same as if you had booked an hotel for a week or two. >> Indeed they may. But that's not "freedom", is it? That's a restriction >> on freedom. If we're visiting an area, we don't know where we'll be >> that evening. We don't necessarily even know which part of the area >> we'll be in. We play it by ear. Drag a caravan along, and that freedom >> is not available. > They could always hitch up and move to another site. Yes, they could. But - whilst doing so - they're subject to those restrictions on road choice and to the relative lack of choice of sites. Which makes it an impractical choice for a touring holiday. Like we had in May (Normandy), last summer (SW Ireland), 2008 (Brittany)... Whichever way you want to try it, Bod, caravanning _restricts_ choice, not expands it.
From: bod on 22 Jun 2010 08:00 Adrian wrote: > bod <bodron57(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > saying: > >>>>>>>>> I thought caravans were for people wanting a holiday on the >>>>>>>>> cheap. > >>>>>>>> Some folk prefer the freedom etc. Each to their own. > >>>>>>> "Freedom"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Apart from the inability to use many back roads, there's a lot less >>>>>>> caravan sites than there are B&Bs in touristy areas. > >>>>>> True, but when they can always unhitch the van and drive around as >>>>>> normal, once they are parked up on a site. > >>>>> Again, a reduction in freedom. When touring around an area, we rarely >>>>> stay in the same place two nights running. > >>>> Not everyone wants to do that though. Some like a base to return to, >>>> the same as if you had booked an hotel for a week or two. > >>> Indeed they may. But that's not "freedom", is it? That's a restriction >>> on freedom. If we're visiting an area, we don't know where we'll be >>> that evening. We don't necessarily even know which part of the area >>> we'll be in. We play it by ear. Drag a caravan along, and that freedom >>> is not available. > >> They could always hitch up and move to another site. > > Yes, they could. But - whilst doing so - they're subject to those > restrictions on road choice and to the relative lack of choice of sites. > Which makes it an impractical choice for a touring holiday. Like we had > in May (Normandy), last summer (SW Ireland), 2008 (Brittany)... > > Whichever way you want to try it, Bod, caravanning _restricts_ choice, > not expands it. > > Whatever, it wouldn't suit us anyway. Bod
From: Nkosi (ama-ecosse) on 22 Jun 2010 08:09 On 22 June, 13:00, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: > Adrian wrote: > > bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were > > saying: > > >>>>>>>>> I thought caravans were for people wanting a holiday on the > >>>>>>>>> cheap. > > >>>>>>>> Some folk prefer the freedom etc. Each to their own. > > >>>>>>> "Freedom"? > > >>>>>>> Apart from the inability to use many back roads, there's a lot less > >>>>>>> caravan sites than there are B&Bs in touristy areas. > > >>>>>> True, but when they can always unhitch the van and drive around as > >>>>>> normal, once they are parked up on a site. > > >>>>> Again, a reduction in freedom. When touring around an area, we rarely > >>>>> stay in the same place two nights running. > > >>>> Not everyone wants to do that though. Some like a base to return to, > >>>> the same as if you had booked an hotel for a week or two. > > >>> Indeed they may. But that's not "freedom", is it? That's a restriction > >>> on freedom. If we're visiting an area, we don't know where we'll be > >>> that evening. We don't necessarily even know which part of the area > >>> we'll be in. We play it by ear. Drag a caravan along, and that freedom > >>> is not available. > > >> They could always hitch up and move to another site. > > > Yes, they could. But - whilst doing so - they're subject to those > > restrictions on road choice and to the relative lack of choice of sites.. > > Which makes it an impractical choice for a touring holiday. Like we had > > in May (Normandy), last summer (SW Ireland), 2008 (Brittany)... > > > Whichever way you want to try it, Bod, caravanning _restricts_ choice, > > not expands it. > > > > > > > Whatever, it wouldn't suit us anyway. > > Bod- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - For a real freedom holiday buy a Harley Nkosi
From: bod on 22 Jun 2010 08:10
Nkosi (ama-ecosse) wrote: > On 22 June, 13:00, bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> wrote: >> Adrian wrote: >>> bod <bodro...(a)tiscali.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were >>> saying: >>>>>>>>>>> I thought caravans were for people wanting a holiday on the >>>>>>>>>>> cheap. >>>>>>>>>> Some folk prefer the freedom etc. Each to their own. >>>>>>>>> "Freedom"? >>>>>>>>> Apart from the inability to use many back roads, there's a lot less >>>>>>>>> caravan sites than there are B&Bs in touristy areas. >>>>>>>> True, but when they can always unhitch the van and drive around as >>>>>>>> normal, once they are parked up on a site. >>>>>>> Again, a reduction in freedom. When touring around an area, we rarely >>>>>>> stay in the same place two nights running. >>>>>> Not everyone wants to do that though. Some like a base to return to, >>>>>> the same as if you had booked an hotel for a week or two. >>>>> Indeed they may. But that's not "freedom", is it? That's a restriction >>>>> on freedom. If we're visiting an area, we don't know where we'll be >>>>> that evening. We don't necessarily even know which part of the area >>>>> we'll be in. We play it by ear. Drag a caravan along, and that freedom >>>>> is not available. >>>> They could always hitch up and move to another site. >>> Yes, they could. But - whilst doing so - they're subject to those >>> restrictions on road choice and to the relative lack of choice of sites. >>> Which makes it an impractical choice for a touring holiday. Like we had >>> in May (Normandy), last summer (SW Ireland), 2008 (Brittany)... >>> Whichever way you want to try it, Bod, caravanning _restricts_ choice, >>> not expands it. >> > >> > >> >> Whatever, it wouldn't suit us anyway. >> >> Bod- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > For a real freedom holiday buy a Harley > > Nkosi > > Yes, that's one way. Bod |