Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas
I've seen the Eiffel tower from a large distance (from the highway near Charles de Gaulle IIRC), and Stonehenge also from the highway. So that's not a lot  . |
I've been in 4, and seen another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicolas
...And that's the feeling I get with anything that IMO would form a candidate for "wonder of the world"
|
My sentiments too:
Basically; I consider a wonder of the world to be: "I wonder how they were able to do that considering..."
Now for this particular "contest", I think there should be a better description of what the list is supposed to convey.
There is no definition as to what a wonder should be. There is an exclusion for technology, and they don't make it clear what the word "new" refers to.
Is it a new list (therefore the pyramid applies)
Is it for new things (like things built after the original list - apparently not)
Is it for new things that were not considered for the original list.
There is no knowledgable authoritative sponsor.
They also say it should be "universally recognizable"... Why? If it is a little known wonder, then why not nominate it?
The original list was a "must see" list. Now, in that vain, it fits to be a popularity contest. But; why take that intermediate step of having a panel of "experts" take it from 77 places down to 21?
I have heard people say ancient stuff is not applicable because it's not new.
I can't really pick 7 from the 21 candidates, never mind from every candidate I could come up with.[/quote]