Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadmeister
Wow, and I thought we New Yorkers were harsh.
I consider trains and the scenery to be part of the experience, as well as the ferry rides. I guess the consensus here is to just stay put in one place, but when forced with the choice between regretting having seen more of a particular spot but at least having seen some of it, and regretting not having been to a particular location at all, I opt for the former. Remember folks that this is my first trip to Scotland so for all I can read in guidebooks, on the web and even first hand accounts from locals, ultimately I can't prefer one place to another before I actually experience them.
|
I'm not saying you should stay in one place, and seeing it is better than not seeing it, but it seems a shame to ONLY see it! You go speeding by and look at something wonderful as you go but can you get out and visit the place? You might be able to look at say Stirling Castle as you travel past it, but will the train stop and let you out so you can go experience it? Abbotsford is beautiful from the road but so much better when gone into. Does this make sense? It just seems so disheartening to go all that way to travel on a train past these places you've read and heard about and not be able to go out and touch things and look at the whole part of them and breath the air there and visit with the people who are also there. . . You can see Loch Ness but will you be able to put your foot in it and tempt 'fate'? heeheehee!
And really, for me anyway, the experiences between point A and point B is the fun part, not just getting there!
And if you stop off at Babz' favorite winery, buy a few choice bottles of tasty treat and take them to Aberdeen, all will be forgiven! LOL
__________________

"It . . it was. . . soap poisoning!"
Any in-content, blue, underlined links are not recommended by me and I will not be held responsible for their appearance in any thread I post.