Over the weekend, received a letter from the chairman of our
60th anniversary high school class reunion, advising that the
reunion will be from September 18-20, 2015.

More details to follow as they become available.

Talk about advance planning.

Maybe that's one of the reasons our reunions have been held
every 5 years starting with the 10th and have had very good
participation.

Lew

On 9/1/2014 7:55 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Over the weekend, received a letter from the chairman of our
60th anniversary high school class reunion, advising that the
reunion will be from September 18-20, 2015.

More details to follow as they become available.

Talk about advance planning.

Maybe that's one of the reasons our reunions have been held
every 5 years starting with the 10th and have had very good
participation.

Well that and or no one's math skills, that look forward to attending,
has deteriorated so much that they can't determine on their own that
they should be expecting another reunion in 5 years. ;~)

There are going to be a lot of factors on participation. The less the
class has spread out/relocated to other parts of the country over the
decades the more likely the participation.

I recall my dad going to his 50th class reunion about 25 years ago, 7~8
showed up, and that was about 85% participation of the whole class. ;~)

Lew Hodgett wrote:

Over the weekend, received a letter from the chairman of our
60th anniversary high school class reunion, advising that the
reunion will be from September 18-20, 2015.

More details to follow as they become available.

Talk about advance planning.

Maybe that's one of the reasons our reunions have been held
every 5 years starting with the 10th and have had very good
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

Well that and or no one's math skills, that look forward to
attending, has deteriorated so much that they can't determine on
their own that they should be expecting another reunion in 5 years.

There are going to be a lot of factors on participation. The less
the class has spread out/relocated to other parts of the country
over the decades the more likely the participation.

I recall my dad going to his 50th class reunion about 25 years ago,
7~8 showed up, and that was about 85% participation of the whole
class.
----------------------------------------------------
The reunion organizers have managed to keep in contact with most
of the class.

Staying in contact has had a major impact on attendance
over the years.

The 50th was the big one.

Had a live band and a large first time participation of classmates
from California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey as well as
the New England area.

Had about 80-90 attend which included spouses.

Since then (10 years ago) parents are gone and many have now
down sized and moved to retirement homes in Florida and are not
traveling as much as in prior years.

I'm sure health issues are now beginning to impact travel ability
as well as cost and incontinence of air travel.

And of course father time has claimed a share, probably 25%-30%.

Will just have to see how things progress during the coming year.

Lew

On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:25:24 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/1/2014 7:55 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Over the weekend, received a letter from the chairman of our
60th anniversary high school class reunion, advising that the
reunion will be from September 18-20, 2015.

More details to follow as they become available.

Talk about advance planning.

Maybe that's one of the reasons our reunions have been held
every 5 years starting with the 10th and have had very good
participation.

Well that and or no one's math skills, that look forward to attending,
has deteriorated so much that they can't determine on their own that
they should be expecting another reunion in 5 years. ;~)

Or it *is* their 5th reunion and they can't count that high. ;-)/2

There are going to be a lot of factors on participation. The less the
class has spread out/relocated to other parts of the country over the
decades the more likely the participation.

I recall my dad going to his 50th class reunion about 25 years ago, 7~8
showed up, and that was about 85% participation of the whole class. ;~)

Our[*] 45th should be coming up soon (hmm, which year was that? ;-)
but since we've never been to one, I highly doubt we'll bother this
time either. I didn't much like high school, so see no reason to
relive it.
[*] Wife and are were in the same class

On Tue, 2 Sep 2014 15:03:08 -0700, "Lew Hodgett"
wrote:


Lew Hodgett wrote:

Over the weekend, received a letter from the chairman of our
60th anniversary high school class reunion, advising that the
reunion will be from September 18-20, 2015.

More details to follow as they become available.

Talk about advance planning.

Maybe that's one of the reasons our reunions have been held
every 5 years starting with the 10th and have had very good
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

Well that and or no one's math skills, that look forward to
attending, has deteriorated so much that they can't determine on
their own that they should be expecting another reunion in 5 years.

There are going to be a lot of factors on participation. The less
the class has spread out/relocated to other parts of the country
over the decades the more likely the participation.

I recall my dad going to his 50th class reunion about 25 years ago,
7~8 showed up, and that was about 85% participation of the whole
class.
----------------------------------------------------
The reunion organizers have managed to keep in contact with most
of the class.

Staying in contact has had a major impact on attendance
over the years.

The 50th was the big one.

Had a live band and a large first time participation of classmates
from California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey as well as
the New England area.

Had about 80-90 attend which included spouses.

Since then (10 years ago) parents are gone and many have now
down sized and moved to retirement homes in Florida and are not
traveling as much as in prior years.

I'm sure health issues are now beginning to impact travel ability
as well as cost and incontinence of air travel.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Hmm, Freudian slip? ;-)

And of course father time has claimed a share, probably 25%-30%.

Will just have to see how things progress during the coming year.

On 9/2/2014 5:03 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:

Over the weekend, received a letter from the chairman of our
60th anniversary high school class reunion, advising that the
reunion will be from September 18-20, 2015.

More details to follow as they become available.

Talk about advance planning.

Maybe that's one of the reasons our reunions have been held
every 5 years starting with the 10th and have had very good
participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Leon" wrote:

Well that and or no one's math skills, that look forward to
attending, has deteriorated so much that they can't determine on
their own that they should be expecting another reunion in 5 years.

There are going to be a lot of factors on participation. The less
the class has spread out/relocated to other parts of the country
over the decades the more likely the participation.

I recall my dad going to his 50th class reunion about 25 years ago,
7~8 showed up, and that was about 85% participation of the whole
class.
----------------------------------------------------
The reunion organizers have managed to keep in contact with most
of the class.

Staying in contact has had a major impact on attendance
over the years.

The 50th was the big one.

Had a live band and a large first time participation of classmates
from California, Texas, Florida, Georgia, New Jersey as well as
the New England area.

Had about 80-90 attend which included spouses.

Since then (10 years ago) parents are gone and many have now
down sized and moved to retirement homes in Florida and are not
traveling as much as in prior years.

I'm sure health issues are now beginning to impact travel ability
as well as cost and incontinence of air travel.

And of course father time has claimed a share, probably 25%-30%.

Will just have to see how things progress during the coming year.

Lew


Have fun Lew!

On 9/2/2014 5:23 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 02 Sep 2014 09:25:24 -0500, Leon lcb11211@swbelldotnet
wrote:

On 9/1/2014 7:55 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
Over the weekend, received a letter from the chairman of our
60th anniversary high school class reunion, advising that the
reunion will be from September 18-20, 2015.

More details to follow as they become available.

Talk about advance planning.

Maybe that's one of the reasons our reunions have been held
every 5 years starting with the 10th and have had very good
participation.

Well that and or no one's math skills, that look forward to attending,
has deteriorated so much that they can't determine on their own that
they should be expecting another reunion in 5 years. ;~)

Or it *is* their 5th reunion and they can't count that high. ;-)/2

There are going to be a lot of factors on participation. The less the
class has spread out/relocated to other parts of the country over the
decades the more likely the participation.

I recall my dad going to his 50th class reunion about 25 years ago, 7~8
showed up, and that was about 85% participation of the whole class. ;~)

Our[*] 45th should be coming up soon (hmm, which year was that? ;-)
but since we've never been to one, I highly doubt we'll bother this
time either. I didn't much like high school, so see no reason to
relive it.

This is pretty much what I have heard from those that have gone a time
or two. The ones that enjoy going year after year keep trying to be
teenagers, with all that comes with that mindset. Most of us have
matured past that stage in our lives.






[*] Wife and are were in the same class

Less than half (30?) of our class reunites every 5 yrs. The others are "too far gone", anyway!

Most of us goers go to eat, bull****, compare our stomach's bulge (compared to last time 'round), the guys discuss huntin & fishin, the girls probably conspire about no-tellin-what. We have fun, with each others company....two day event(s).

Sonny

See what a spell checker can do if allowed free to roam:

Lew Hodgett wrote:


I'm sure health issues are now beginning to impact travel ability
as well as cost and incontinence of air travel.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Make that inconvenience of air travel, although incontinence
probably fits in there somewhere.

Lew

"Leon" wrote:

Have fun Lew!
----------------------------------------------------------
You have me committed and I haven't even thought about it,
but thank you anyway.

When I put my mother in the ground, thought that would be my
last trip back to Ohio, but who knows.

Guess the timing would be about right for one last unassisted
trip back to Ohio.

After 50+ years of having my rear end jammed in the center seat
of a 707, don't think I could face needing help getting onboard
and in that center seat.

Air travel isn't what it used to be.

After 911, it's almost more work than it's worth.

Will just have to see what the coming year brings.

Lew

On 9/2/2014 5:30 PM, wrote:

Hmm, Freudian slip?;-)

Actually thought it was an accurate description of the **** poor
experience of flying these days.

Raped and groped by hired goons on the way to the plane, squeezed into
kid sized seats, inhaling germ laden air, while you sit on the runway
for an hour waiting to take off.

For US travel, if I can't drive, I'm not going.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:57:41 -0500, Swingman wrote:

On 9/2/2014 5:30 PM, wrote:

Hmm, Freudian slip?;-)

Actually thought it was an accurate description of the **** poor
experience of flying these days.

Raped and groped by hired goons on the way to the plane, squeezed into
kid sized seats, inhaling germ laden air, while you sit on the runway
for an hour waiting to take off.

That's a bit exaggerated but it can be a PITA. The last few business
trips I've been on, the gate procedures had been slackened
considerably. No searches, just throw the luggage and computer case
on the belt and pick it up at the other end. I put my wallet and
stuff in my computer case. Didn't even have to take the shoes off.

For US travel, if I can't drive, I'm not going.

I'm generally with you, but business is business. They won't allow
driving. I will be flying the 1200mi to VT, probably this weekend, to
pick up my wife's car (was in an accident on vacation a couple of
months back). I'll fly because I find driving two cars at the same
time, difficult. ;-)

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:42 -0400, krw wrote:

I will be flying the 1200mi to VT, probably this weekend, to
pick up my wife's car (was in an accident on vacation a couple of months
back). I'll fly because I find driving two cars at the same time,
difficult. ;-)

Don't know how long it'll take you to drive it or what your start/stop
points are, but have you considered the train? Amtrak has a daily train
(the Vermonter) from DC that makes 9 stops in Vermont and you can get to
DC on a train from just about anywhere. Takes about 13 hours for the
whole trip. See:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/87/280/V...ule-060914.pdf

On 9/3/2014 4:02 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:42 -0400, krw wrote:

I will be flying the 1200mi to VT, probably this weekend, to
pick up my wife's car (was in an accident on vacation a couple of months
back). I'll fly because I find driving two cars at the same time,
difficult. ;-)

Don't know how long it'll take you to drive it or what your start/stop
points are, but have you considered the train? Amtrak has a daily train
(the Vermonter) from DC that makes 9 stops in Vermont and you can get to
DC on a train from just about anywhere. Takes about 13 hours for the
whole trip. See:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/87/280/V...ule-060914.pdf

Train travel is not what it use to in from the real part of the country.
ie not the coastal cities.

In most of the country traveling by train is a joke. You may have to
travel 50 miles to find a train station and when you do you may go
hundreds of miles out of your way to reach your destination.

On 09/03/2014 3:24 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
....

... You may have to
travel 50 miles to find a train station and when you do you may go
hundreds of miles out of your way to reach your destination.

And how is that any different than flying??? (And 50 mi would be right
next door close, here...)

--

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:02:25 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:42 -0400, krw wrote:

I will be flying the 1200mi to VT, probably this weekend, to
pick up my wife's car (was in an accident on vacation a couple of months
back). I'll fly because I find driving two cars at the same time,
difficult. ;-)

Don't know how long it'll take you to drive it or what your start/stop
points are, but have you considered the train? Amtrak has a daily train
(the Vermonter) from DC that makes 9 stops in Vermont and you can get to
DC on a train from just about anywhere. Takes about 13 hours for the
whole trip.

....on a *very* good day.

See:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/87/280/V...ule-060914.pdf

OK, it's 13hrs to Washington, 13 hours from Washington to VT (Essex
Junction would be good but I'd be dumped on the street, there), and
another 12 hours overnight waiting in a train station in DC (not my
cup-o-tea). 36hrs, vs. 4.5hrs, at about the same cost as a next-day
airfare. I still don't know when I'm going.

Maybe Friday, maybe next Thursday (the next time I can get free). I
also don't want to take four days off work. It would also be nice to
drive it a bit to make sure it's fixed before I leave.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 15:45:41 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 09/03/2014 3:24 PM, Keith Nuttle wrote:
...

... You may have to
travel 50 miles to find a train station and when you do you may go
hundreds of miles out of your way to reach your destination.

And how is that any different than flying??? (And 50 mi would be right
next door close, here...)

With 9 stops in VT, there isn't any sq.in. of the state that's 50mi.
away. ;-) I used to live in Essex Junction (one of the stops) but
there is nothing there. I'd be stuck on the street. There isn't even
a station. The train just stops and lets people off on the street
(and ties up all the traffic - there is a reason it's called "Essex
Junction" ;-).

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 08:57:41 -0500, Swingman wrote:
Raped and groped by hired goons on the way to the plane, squeezed into
kid sized seats, inhaling germ laden air, while you sit on the runway
for an hour waiting to take off.
For US travel, if I can't drive, I'm not going.

It's not any different in Canuckistan. And, I have the added
irritation of using a wheelchair which doesn't fit between seats on a
plane. So, I'm required to ride on skinny transport seat that's half
the width of one of my butt cheeks.

Add to that my being the last one on the plane and the last one off
the plane ~ only if I'm not bumped from my seat from overbooking.
Wonder why I refuse to fly anywhere anymore?

wrote:


OK, it's 13hrs to Washington, 13 hours from Washington to VT (Essex
Junction would be good but I'd be dumped on the street, there), and
another 12 hours overnight waiting in a train station in DC (not my
cup-o-tea). 36hrs, vs. 4.5hrs, at about the same cost as a next-day
airfare. I still don't know when I'm going.

Ok - you're like me - you travel enough to know that no matter what anybody
says, trains do not compare in the total of price, time and convenience to
flying. They are kinda fun once in a while, but not in a practical sense.
It's a no-brainer. Get on the plane and get heading home with the car.


--

-Mike-

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 20:33:58 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:


OK, it's 13hrs to Washington, 13 hours from Washington to VT (Essex
Junction would be good but I'd be dumped on the street, there), and
another 12 hours overnight waiting in a train station in DC (not my
cup-o-tea). 36hrs, vs. 4.5hrs, at about the same cost as a next-day
airfare. I still don't know when I'm going.

Ok - you're like me - you travel enough to know that no matter what anybody
says, trains do not compare in the total of price, time and convenience to
flying. They are kinda fun once in a while, but not in a practical sense.
It's a no-brainer. Get on the plane and get heading home with the car.

Sure, but a couple of points... I generally only travel by air for
business. I rarely use air for personal travel. In fact, the reason
the car is there was that we got in an accident when we were up there
on vacation. ...by car. I'm only traveling by air because I have to
get the car back here somehow and don't feel like taking another week
to do it again. I don't know when, because now they can't get the
damned airbag system working, after not being able to get parts.
....and the airbags did most of the damage.

wrote:

Sure, but a couple of points... I generally only travel by air for
business. I rarely use air for personal travel. In fact, the reason
the car is there was that we got in an accident when we were up there
on vacation. ...by car. I'm only traveling by air because I have to
get the car back here somehow and don't feel like taking another week
to do it again. I don't know when, because now they can't get the
damned airbag system working, after not being able to get parts.
...and the airbags did most of the damage.

I get that but I'm a bit the opposite of that. If the trip is that far away
that I have to worry about those things I elect to fly and rent - but that's
just me. I don't like to anticipate being in the situarion you're in. It's
a preference thing for sure. Well... that and I hate to drive long
distance...

--

-Mike-

On 9/3/2014 3:02 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:42 -0400, krw wrote:

I will be flying the 1200mi to VT, probably this weekend, to
pick up my wife's car (was in an accident on vacation a couple of months
back). I'll fly because I find driving two cars at the same time,
difficult. ;-)

Don't know how long it'll take you to drive it or what your start/stop
points are, but have you considered the train? Amtrak has a daily train
(the Vermonter) from DC that makes 9 stops in Vermont and you can get to
DC on a train from just about anywhere. Takes about 13 hours for the
whole trip. See:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/87/280/V...ule-060914.pdf

What does the train charge for hauling the car back - might be cheaper,
But the real cost is your body.

Martin

On 9/3/2014 10:37 PM, Martin Eastburn wrote:
On 9/3/2014 3:02 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:42 -0400, krw wrote:

I will be flying the 1200mi to VT, probably this weekend, to
pick up my wife's car (was in an accident on vacation a couple of months
back). I'll fly because I find driving two cars at the same time,
difficult. ;-)

Don't know how long it'll take you to drive it or what your start/stop
points are, but have you considered the train? Amtrak has a daily train
(the Vermonter) from DC that makes 9 stops in Vermont and you can get to
DC on a train from just about anywhere. Takes about 13 hours for the
whole trip. See:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/87/280/V...ule-060914.pdf

What does the train charge for hauling the car back - might be cheaper,
But the real cost is your body.

Martin


May not be feasible, a passenger train trip from Houston to Hot Springs
has several hours on a buss out of Houston. Although a freight train
might go all the way in way or another.

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message


There are going to be a lot of factors on participation. The less the
class has spread out/relocated to other parts of the country over the
decades the more likely the participation.

True, of course. One of the things that surprised me was the number of
people that had stayed "close to home". I'd guess that at least a third
had stayed in the same town; of the other 2/3, probably 80% were living
within 200 miles (of their home town). AFAIK, I was the only one out of
350 that was living out of the country.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:05:26 -0400, krw wrote:

OK, it's 13hrs to Washington, 13 hours from Washington to VT (Essex
Junction would be good but I'd be dumped on the street, there), and
another 12 hours overnight waiting in a train station in DC (not my
cup-o-tea). 36hrs, vs. 4.5hrs, at about the same cost as a next-day
airfare.

I did say I didn't know your start/stop points :-).

But if it wasn't for the overnight bit, I'd still take the 26 hours over,
as Swingman said:

Raped and groped by hired goons on the way to the plane, squeezed into
kid sized seats, inhaling germ laden air, while you sit on the runway for
an hour waiting to take off.

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 21:56:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:

Sure, but a couple of points... I generally only travel by air for
business. I rarely use air for personal travel. In fact, the reason
the car is there was that we got in an accident when we were up there
on vacation. ...by car. I'm only traveling by air because I have to
get the car back here somehow and don't feel like taking another week
to do it again. I don't know when, because now they can't get the
damned airbag system working, after not being able to get parts.
...and the airbags did most of the damage.

I get that but I'm a bit the opposite of that. If the trip is that far away
that I have to worry about those things I elect to fly and rent - but that's
just me. I don't like to anticipate being in the situarion you're in. It's
a preference thing for sure. Well... that and I hate to drive long
distance...

West coast, yeah, we'd fly. ...unless it was a month-long vacation. I
find the driving to be part of the vacation.

I'm sure that if we ever vacation in Hawaii, we'll fly. ;-)

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 16:39:50 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 19:05:26 -0400, krw wrote:

OK, it's 13hrs to Washington, 13 hours from Washington to VT (Essex
Junction would be good but I'd be dumped on the street, there), and
another 12 hours overnight waiting in a train station in DC (not my
cup-o-tea). 36hrs, vs. 4.5hrs, at about the same cost as a next-day
airfare.

I did say I didn't know your start/stop points :-).

DC to VT is only half the 1200mi.

But if it wasn't for the overnight bit, I'd still take the 26 hours over,
as Swingman said:

I wouldn't. There is a reason I don't do cruises.

...

On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 22:37:20 -0500, Martin Eastburn
wrote:

On 9/3/2014 3:02 PM, Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:40:42 -0400, krw wrote:

I will be flying the 1200mi to VT, probably this weekend, to
pick up my wife's car (was in an accident on vacation a couple of months
back). I'll fly because I find driving two cars at the same time,
difficult. ;-)

Don't know how long it'll take you to drive it or what your start/stop
points are, but have you considered the train? Amtrak has a daily train
(the Vermonter) from DC that makes 9 stops in Vermont and you can get to
DC on a train from just about anywhere. Takes about 13 hours for the
whole trip. See:

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/87/280/V...ule-060914.pdf

What does the train charge for hauling the car back - might be cheaper,
But the real cost is your body.

AFAIK, the "car-train" only operates between (somewhere outside of) DC
down to one location in FL. It's *not* cheap.

Real cost? I don't mind driving, up to about 12hrs per day, anyway. I
haven't done it for more than two days (in a *long* time, anyway),
though.

On Thu, 4 Sep 2014 11:28:28 -0400, "dadiOH"
wrote:

"Leon" lcb11211@swbelldotnet wrote in message
m

There are going to be a lot of factors on participation. The less the
class has spread out/relocated to other parts of the country over the
decades the more likely the participation.

True, of course. One of the things that surprised me was the number of
people that had stayed "close to home". I'd guess that at least a third
had stayed in the same town; of the other 2/3, probably 80% were living
within 200 miles (of their home town). AFAIK, I was the only one out of
350 that was living out of the country.

I don't find that surprising at all. It's difficult to live very far
from family. Most don't want to do it. That's one reason so many are
unemployed, while there are loads of jobs around the country.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:47:39 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 21:56:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:

Sure, but a couple of points... I generally only travel by air for
business. I rarely use air for personal travel. In fact, the reason
the car is there was that we got in an accident when we were up there
on vacation. ...by car. I'm only traveling by air because I have to
get the car back here somehow and don't feel like taking another week
to do it again. I don't know when, because now they can't get the
damned airbag system working, after not being able to get parts.
...and the airbags did most of the damage.

I get that but I'm a bit the opposite of that. If the trip is that far away
that I have to worry about those things I elect to fly and rent - but that's
just me. I don't like to anticipate being in the situarion you're in. It's
a preference thing for sure. Well... that and I hate to drive long
distance...

West coast, yeah, we'd fly. ...unless it was a month-long vacation. I
find the driving to be part of the vacation.

I'm sure that if we ever vacation in Hawaii, we'll fly. ;-)
Or take a cruise ship. I HATE sitting in the cramped seats of
commercial aircraft for any length of time.
I have more room in my buddy's '46 Aircoupe!!!! (and anyone who's
flown in one of those knows that's saying something - for a 6'2" 220
pounder.

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 23:22:05 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 04 Sep 2014 19:47:39 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 3 Sep 2014 21:56:31 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:

Sure, but a couple of points... I generally only travel by air for
business. I rarely use air for personal travel. In fact, the reason
the car is there was that we got in an accident when we were up there
on vacation. ...by car. I'm only traveling by air because I have to
get the car back here somehow and don't feel like taking another week
to do it again. I don't know when, because now they can't get the
damned airbag system working, after not being able to get parts.
...and the airbags did most of the damage.

I get that but I'm a bit the opposite of that. If the trip is that far away
that I have to worry about those things I elect to fly and rent - but that's
just me. I don't like to anticipate being in the situarion you're in. It's
a preference thing for sure. Well... that and I hate to drive long
distance...

West coast, yeah, we'd fly. ...unless it was a month-long vacation. I
find the driving to be part of the vacation.

I'm sure that if we ever vacation in Hawaii, we'll fly. ;-)
Or take a cruise ship. I HATE sitting in the cramped seats of
commercial aircraft for any length of time.
I have more room in my buddy's '46 Aircoupe!!!! (and anyone who's
flown in one of those knows that's saying something - for a 6'2" 220
pounder.

FLying only takes hours, rather than days and is *far* cheaper. If
I'm going on a cruise (I don't want to - I'd be bored stiff), it'll be
on one of the Alaska cruises.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:42:49 -0400, krw wrote:

FLying only takes hours, rather than days and is *far* cheaper. If I'm
going on a cruise (I don't want to - I'd be bored stiff), it'll be on
one of the Alaska cruises.

We went on an Alaskan cruise. Only thing to do on board is eat, gamble,
or buy stuff. The ports of call are solid gift shops for a square mile
around the dock (OK, a slight exaggeration, but only slight).

The only things that made the cruise bearable were the scenery (for a few
hours of the 6 days) and the storm that made even the crew seasick, but
not us - yes, gloating is cruel, but it's fun :-). And because of the
storm, we made an unscheduled stop in Vancouver and they have a great
natural history museum.

I won't say my wife will never drag me on another, but I'd have consider
whether a divorce would be preferable :-).

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 20:37:35 +0000 (UTC), Larry Blanchard
wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:42:49 -0400, krw wrote:

FLying only takes hours, rather than days and is *far* cheaper. If I'm
going on a cruise (I don't want to - I'd be bored stiff), it'll be on
one of the Alaska cruises.

We went on an Alaskan cruise. Only thing to do on board is eat, gamble,
or buy stuff. The ports of call are solid gift shops for a square mile
around the dock (OK, a slight exaggeration, but only slight).

There's drinking, too. I don't touch the stuff (anymore) so that's
out. Unless they have woodworking stores, I wouldn't buy anything, so
there is another reason to skip the whole thing. ;-)

The only things that made the cruise bearable were the scenery (for a few
hours of the 6 days) and the storm that made even the crew seasick, but
not us - yes, gloating is cruel, but it's fun :-). And because of the
storm, we made an unscheduled stop in Vancouver and they have a great
natural history museum.

Good to know! I thought there would be a lot more scenery than that.
I don't think I get seasick (never had an issue with motion sickness)
but don't really want to know. I have no sensitivity to Poison Ivy
but I'm not about to keep trying it, either.

I won't say my wife will never drag me on another, but I'd have consider
whether a divorce would be preferable :-).

I've sent my wife on a few cruises with her mother and friends. ...a
double win! ;-)

Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:42:49 -0400, krw wrote:

FLying only takes hours, rather than days and is *far* cheaper. If
I'm going on a cruise (I don't want to - I'd be bored stiff), it'll
be on one of the Alaska cruises.

We went on an Alaskan cruise. Only thing to do on board is eat,
gamble, or buy stuff. The ports of call are solid gift shops for a
square mile around the dock (OK, a slight exaggeration, but only
slight).

The only things that made the cruise bearable were the scenery (for a
few hours of the 6 days) and the storm that made even the crew
seasick, but not us - yes, gloating is cruel, but it's fun :-). And
because of the storm, we made an unscheduled stop in Vancouver and
they have a great natural history museum.

I won't say my wife will never drag me on another, but I'd have
consider whether a divorce would be preferable :-).

I guess it's all in what you're interested in, but that's why I've never
been interested in an Alaskan cruise. Just never seemed to me that there
was enough of interest to see. For me - I'm great with Carribbean cruises -
I love those beaches and that sunshine. My wife is sorta happy with those
drinks with the umberalls in them. We don't do much more than eat on the
boat - but we are pretty good at doing that, so we liked it. Not gamblers
so the casino was of zero interest to us. Don't drink (me), so hanging out
at the bar was of no interest to me and my wife really could not care less
about that herself. But eating - well, we're a bit into that. So - we did
island tours, beaches, and all that stuff, and then we enjoyed whatever we
wanted to eat on the boat. It was a treat that we don't afford ourselves on
a normal basis.

--

-Mike-

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:51:52 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:42:49 -0400, krw wrote:

FLying only takes hours, rather than days and is *far* cheaper. If
I'm going on a cruise (I don't want to - I'd be bored stiff), it'll
be on one of the Alaska cruises.

We went on an Alaskan cruise. Only thing to do on board is eat,
gamble, or buy stuff. The ports of call are solid gift shops for a
square mile around the dock (OK, a slight exaggeration, but only
slight).

The only things that made the cruise bearable were the scenery (for a
few hours of the 6 days) and the storm that made even the crew
seasick, but not us - yes, gloating is cruel, but it's fun :-). And
because of the storm, we made an unscheduled stop in Vancouver and
they have a great natural history museum.

I won't say my wife will never drag me on another, but I'd have
consider whether a divorce would be preferable :-).

I guess it's all in what you're interested in, but that's why I've never
been interested in an Alaskan cruise. Just never seemed to me that there
was enough of interest to see. For me - I'm great with Carribbean cruises -
I love those beaches and that sunshine. My wife is sorta happy with those
drinks with the umberalls in them. We don't do much more than eat on the
boat - but we are pretty good at doing that, so we liked it. Not gamblers
so the casino was of zero interest to us. Don't drink (me), so hanging out
at the bar was of no interest to me and my wife really could not care less
about that herself. But eating - well, we're a bit into that. So - we did
island tours, beaches, and all that stuff, and then we enjoyed whatever we
wanted to eat on the boat. It was a treat that we don't afford ourselves on
a normal basis.

If I want to go to a beach (Redneck Riviera in three weeks ;-), I'll
go to a beach. There is no reason to spend a week on a boat to do it.
I can eat at home and do too much of it here. Vacation diets are
already a disaster - don't need more help. ;-)

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 17:55:10 -0400, krw wrote:

Good to know! I thought there would be a lot more scenery than that

I did too, but a lot of the time we were out of sight of the coast. One
wave and/or pier looks a lot like another. We spent a few hours looking
at places where glaciers used to be (no, I'm not kidding) and we took a
side excursion from Skagway on the train. Those were the scenic moments.

To be fair, there were supposedly better viewing spots in Glacier Bay,
but because of the weather the captain decided going to those spots was
too risky.

P.S. He was a *cautious* Italian - apparently not the same one who
wrecked the Costa Concordia :-).

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:06:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:51:52 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:42:49 -0400, krw wrote:

FLying only takes hours, rather than days and is *far* cheaper. If
I'm going on a cruise (I don't want to - I'd be bored stiff), it'll
be on one of the Alaska cruises.

We went on an Alaskan cruise. Only thing to do on board is eat,
gamble, or buy stuff. The ports of call are solid gift shops for a
square mile around the dock (OK, a slight exaggeration, but only
slight).

The only things that made the cruise bearable were the scenery (for a
few hours of the 6 days) and the storm that made even the crew
seasick, but not us - yes, gloating is cruel, but it's fun :-). And
because of the storm, we made an unscheduled stop in Vancouver and
they have a great natural history museum.

I won't say my wife will never drag me on another, but I'd have
consider whether a divorce would be preferable :-).

I guess it's all in what you're interested in, but that's why I've never
been interested in an Alaskan cruise. Just never seemed to me that there
was enough of interest to see. For me - I'm great with Carribbean cruises -
I love those beaches and that sunshine. My wife is sorta happy with those
drinks with the umberalls in them. We don't do much more than eat on the
boat - but we are pretty good at doing that, so we liked it. Not gamblers
so the casino was of zero interest to us. Don't drink (me), so hanging out
at the bar was of no interest to me and my wife really could not care less
about that herself. But eating - well, we're a bit into that. So - we did
island tours, beaches, and all that stuff, and then we enjoyed whatever we
wanted to eat on the boat. It was a treat that we don't afford ourselves on
a normal basis.

If I want to go to a beach (Redneck Riviera in three weeks ;-), I'll
go to a beach. There is no reason to spend a week on a boat to do it.
I can eat at home and do too much of it here. Vacation diets are
already a disaster - don't need more help. ;-)
Well, for me and my wife, cruising is a real holiday.We can sit on
the deck, or on the balcony - in the warmth of the caribean when it's
blowing snow and cold and miserable at home. We can visit different
places and stay in the same hotel room every night, where my wife
doesn't need to cook or clean.
The alaskan cruise had LOADS of scenery and we lucked out and only had
half a day of rain,and very little fog. We got out of the touristy
souvenier shops as quickly as possible, and did a lot of walking and
took public transit or grabbed a tour off-ship. Saved a bundle and had
a good time.
On our Mediteranean cruise (first cruise of the spring season) it was
cold and windy and nasty for a few days, but Madiera and the Canary
Islands more than made up for it - we rented a car on Tennerif and
drove up Mount Tiede? -a drive of a lifetime. Rented a mini-taxi in
Cassablanca, and walked around Marseille. Then took the hop-on hop-off
tour bus around Barcelona. The flight home was HELL. Prior to the
cruise we spent a week in Austria - 2 days on business in Gunskirchen
then touring by rented car to Salzburg via Hallstatt, and then back to
Vienna. Fantastic scenery, friendly folks, and good spring weather.

Much prefered any of our cruises to a week at an all inclusive resort
- but Cuba was definitely worth seeing once.

Getting to the ship and back is generally the worst part of a cruise
vacation - and I LOVE flying. But not packed like cattle into a
"flying school-bus" for several hours - or days.

I've done enough very long distance flying that consider the
commercial flight portion of a trip a holiday any more. Can't move.
Can't see anything. It's noizy and uncomfortable. Half the time it's
dirty. The food is lousy - and did I mention - it's UNCOMFORTABLE for
a long-leggedke me.

Wife wants to go to Hawaii. Wouldn't mind it myself. Flying to San
Fransisco be enough flying. I'd drive it if I had the time - and enjoy
it more than the flight even though at my age I need to get out and
tretch every hour or so or my back and legs REALLY complain when I
finally do get out. Would love to do the old Route 66 out, but would
want at least a week both ways, added to the 2 week cruise, and
another week in Cali. Been 22 years since I was last in Frisco and
years since I last drove across the great plains (to Tulsa) Would want
to finally drive the PCH (closed due to quake last time I was out),
Redwood Canyon again, and Monterey.

A few days on the ship each way from Frisco to Hawaii sounds a lot
better to me than a day each way on the plane!!!

wrote in message


Wife wants to go to Hawaii.

If you ever do and want to do non-touristy things, rent a car and drive
around Round Top and Mt. Tantalus (same road). In town, easily accessible
from Waikiki. Great mountain forest, views of the town, etc. I lived
there nearly 40 years and I liked that drive so much I'd do it at least
once a year.

Another interesting drive is the old Pali Road. It went from the leeward
to windward side of the island through Nuuanu Valley, up the mountain,
then wound down a precipitous road carved out of the mountain side.
Hairy. Most is gone, Pali Highway and a tunnel replaced it, but there is
still a portion left on the Honolulu side, reached by a turnoff from Pali
Highway. The attractions are jungle and views of Nuuanu Stream.

A third dadiOH recommendation is the Honolulu Art Museum. It is on
Beretania Street (one way toward downtown) about a mile from downtown and
two miles from Waikiki. About half of it is Oriental art, the other half
"conventional" including Gauguin and Van Gogh. The building itself is -
IMO - an extremely attractive one...a fine example of what tropical
architecture should be.

There used to be a lot of other interesting things but most of what
enchanted me has been razed in favor of high rises and traffic

I just thought of another. If you like to walk, go to the end of the road
in Manoa Valley and hike up to Manoa Falls. It is an easy walk and Manoa
valley is only about three miles from Waikiki.

As a bit of trivia, Manoa gets about 300 inches of rain annually, Waikiki,
maybe 20. The reason is that the trade winds have picked up a lot of
water; when they hit the leeward side they are forced up by the mountains;
up=cooler, cooler=rain. You can sit in Waikiki and watch the clouds
forming over the mountains; those clouds then blow toward Waikiki but
rarely get there because they are dissipated by the ever dryer air.

--

dadiOH
____________________________

Winters getting colder? Tired of the rat race?
Taxes out of hand? Maybe just ready for a change?
Check it out... http://www.floridaloghouse.net

On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:29:44 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:06:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:51:52 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:42:49 -0400, krw wrote:

FLying only takes hours, rather than days and is *far* cheaper. If
I'm going on a cruise (I don't want to - I'd be bored stiff), it'll
be on one of the Alaska cruises.

We went on an Alaskan cruise. Only thing to do on board is eat,
gamble, or buy stuff. The ports of call are solid gift shops for a
square mile around the dock (OK, a slight exaggeration, but only
slight).

The only things that made the cruise bearable were the scenery (for a
few hours of the 6 days) and the storm that made even the crew
seasick, but not us - yes, gloating is cruel, but it's fun :-). And
because of the storm, we made an unscheduled stop in Vancouver and
they have a great natural history museum.

I won't say my wife will never drag me on another, but I'd have
consider whether a divorce would be preferable :-).

I guess it's all in what you're interested in, but that's why I've never
been interested in an Alaskan cruise. Just never seemed to me that there
was enough of interest to see. For me - I'm great with Carribbean cruises -
I love those beaches and that sunshine. My wife is sorta happy with those
drinks with the umberalls in them. We don't do much more than eat on the
boat - but we are pretty good at doing that, so we liked it. Not gamblers
so the casino was of zero interest to us. Don't drink (me), so hanging out
at the bar was of no interest to me and my wife really could not care less
about that herself. But eating - well, we're a bit into that. So - we did
island tours, beaches, and all that stuff, and then we enjoyed whatever we
wanted to eat on the boat. It was a treat that we don't afford ourselves on
a normal basis.

If I want to go to a beach (Redneck Riviera in three weeks ;-), I'll
go to a beach. There is no reason to spend a week on a boat to do it.
I can eat at home and do too much of it here. Vacation diets are
already a disaster - don't need more help. ;-)
Well, for me and my wife, cruising is a real holiday.We can sit on
the deck, or on the balcony - in the warmth of the caribean when it's
blowing snow and cold and miserable at home. We can visit different
places and stay in the same hotel room every night, where my wife
doesn't need to cook or clean.

We do that with our toes in the sand on the FL beach. We have the car
available if we want to go somewhere, too. She actually does cook, a
little, and sure, there is a little cleaning. Very little, actually,
in a week. We rent an entire four-bedroom (two masters) house for
about $1300 for the week. My wife has a friend, who she sees only
once or twice a year, come see us and this year the kid and his wife
will join us.

The alaskan cruise had LOADS of scenery and we lucked out and only had
half a day of rain,and very little fog. We got out of the touristy
souvenier shops as quickly as possible, and did a lot of walking and
took public transit or grabbed a tour off-ship. Saved a bundle and had
a good time.

I guess that was the other Alaska. ;-)

On our Mediteranean cruise (first cruise of the spring season) it was
cold and windy and nasty for a few days, but Madiera and the Canary
Islands more than made up for it - we rented a car on Tennerif and
drove up Mount Tiede? -a drive of a lifetime. Rented a mini-taxi in
Cassablanca, and walked around Marseille. Then took the hop-on hop-off
tour bus around Barcelona. The flight home was HELL. Prior to the
cruise we spent a week in Austria - 2 days on business in Gunskirchen
then touring by rented car to Salzburg via Hallstatt, and then back to
Vienna. Fantastic scenery, friendly folks, and good spring weather.

Much prefered any of our cruises to a week at an all inclusive resort
- but Cuba was definitely worth seeing once.

Getting to the ship and back is generally the worst part of a cruise
vacation - and I LOVE flying. But not packed like cattle into a
"flying school-bus" for several hours - or days.

Yeah, flying is no longer a vacation. It's much more work than work.
I'll be doing the VT run next Wednesday but it's only four hours end
to end. Two days driving back won't be fun but it's my penance for
wrecking the wife's toy.

I've done enough very long distance flying that consider the
commercial flight portion of a trip a holiday any more. Can't move.
Can't see anything. It's noizy and uncomfortable. Half the time it's
dirty. The food is lousy - and did I mention - it's UNCOMFORTABLE for
a long-leggedke me.

I bet I know which side you're on in the great seat-back debate. ;-)

Wife wants to go to Hawaii. Wouldn't mind it myself. Flying to San
Fransisco be enough flying. I'd drive it if I had the time - and enjoy
it more than the flight even though at my age I need to get out and
tretch every hour or so or my back and legs REALLY complain when I
finally do get out. Would love to do the old Route 66 out, but would
want at least a week both ways, added to the 2 week cruise, and
another week in Cali. Been 22 years since I was last in Frisco and
years since I last drove across the great plains (to Tulsa) Would want
to finally drive the PCH (closed due to quake last time I was out),
Redwood Canyon again, and Monterey.

Sure. Skip the flight and Hawaii and I'll do the couple of weeks back
and forth to the left coast. My ideal vacation has always been a
class-A for a month in the west. Maybe some day.

A few days on the ship each way from Frisco to Hawaii sounds a lot
better to me than a day each way on the plane!!!

I don't mind flying quite that much. My wife absolutely hates it,
though. For Hawaii or Australia, she would probably get over it.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 10:01:02 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Sep 2014 00:29:44 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 20:06:49 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 5 Sep 2014 18:51:52 -0400, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:


Larry Blanchard wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2014 12:42:49 -0400, krw wrote:

FLying only takes hours, rather than days and is *far* cheaper. If
I'm going on a cruise (I don't want to - I'd be bored stiff), it'll
be on one of the Alaska cruises.

We went on an Alaskan cruise. Only thing to do on board is eat,
gamble, or buy stuff. The ports of call are solid gift shops for a
square mile around the dock (OK, a slight exaggeration, but only
slight).

The only things that made the cruise bearable were the scenery (for a
few hours of the 6 days) and the storm that made even the crew
seasick, but not us - yes, gloating is cruel, but it's fun :-). And
because of the storm, we made an unscheduled stop in Vancouver and
they have a great natural history museum.

I won't say my wife will never drag me on another, but I'd have
consider whether a divorce would be preferable :-).

I guess it's all in what you're interested in, but that's why I've never
been interested in an Alaskan cruise. Just never seemed to me that there
was enough of interest to see. For me - I'm great with Carribbean cruises -
I love those beaches and that sunshine. My wife is sorta happy with those
drinks with the umberalls in them. We don't do much more than eat on the
boat - but we are pretty good at doing that, so we liked it. Not gamblers
so the casino was of zero interest to us. Don't drink (me), so hanging out
at the bar was of no interest to me and my wife really could not care less
about that herself. But eating - well, we're a bit into that. So - we did
island tours, beaches, and all that stuff, and then we enjoyed whatever we
wanted to eat on the boat. It was a treat that we don't afford ourselves on
a normal basis.

If I want to go to a beach (Redneck Riviera in three weeks ;-), I'll
go to a beach. There is no reason to spend a week on a boat to do it.
I can eat at home and do too much of it here. Vacation diets are
already a disaster - don't need more help. ;-)
Well, for me and my wife, cruising is a real holiday.We can sit on
the deck, or on the balcony - in the warmth of the caribean when it's
blowing snow and cold and miserable at home. We can visit different
places and stay in the same hotel room every night, where my wife
doesn't need to cook or clean.

We do that with our toes in the sand on the FL beach. We have the car
available if we want to go somewhere, too. She actually does cook, a
little, and sure, there is a little cleaning. Very little, actually,
in a week. We rent an entire four-bedroom (two masters) house for
about $1300 for the week. My wife has a friend, who she sees only
once or twice a year, come see us and this year the kid and his wife
will join us.

The alaskan cruise had LOADS of scenery and we lucked out and only had
half a day of rain,and very little fog. We got out of the touristy
souvenier shops as quickly as possible, and did a lot of walking and
took public transit or grabbed a tour off-ship. Saved a bundle and had
a good time.

I guess that was the other Alaska. ;-)

On our Mediteranean cruise (first cruise of the spring season) it was
cold and windy and nasty for a few days, but Madiera and the Canary
Islands more than made up for it - we rented a car on Tennerif and
drove up Mount Tiede? -a drive of a lifetime. Rented a mini-taxi in
Cassablanca, and walked around Marseille. Then took the hop-on hop-off
tour bus around Barcelona. The flight home was HELL. Prior to the
cruise we spent a week in Austria - 2 days on business in Gunskirchen
then touring by rented car to Salzburg via Hallstatt, and then back to
Vienna. Fantastic scenery, friendly folks, and good spring weather.

Much prefered any of our cruises to a week at an all inclusive resort
- but Cuba was definitely worth seeing once.

Getting to the ship and back is generally the worst part of a cruise
vacation - and I LOVE flying. But not packed like cattle into a
"flying school-bus" for several hours - or days.

Yeah, flying is no longer a vacation. It's much more work than work.
I'll be doing the VT run next Wednesday but it's only four hours end
to end. Two days driving back won't be fun but it's my penance for
wrecking the wife's toy.

I've done enough very long distance flying that consider the
commercial flight portion of a trip a holiday any more. Can't move.
Can't see anything. It's noizy and uncomfortable. Half the time it's
dirty. The food is lousy - and did I mention - it's UNCOMFORTABLE for
a long-leggedke me.

I bet I know which side you're on in the great seat-back debate. ;-)

Wife wants to go to Hawaii. Wouldn't mind it myself. Flying to San
Fransisco be enough flying. I'd drive it if I had the time - and enjoy
it more than the flight even though at my age I need to get out and
tretch every hour or so or my back and legs REALLY complain when I
finally do get out. Would love to do the old Route 66 out, but would
want at least a week both ways, added to the 2 week cruise, and
another week in Cali. Been 22 years since I was last in Frisco and
years since I last drove across the great plains (to Tulsa) Would want
to finally drive the PCH (closed due to quake last time I was out),
Redwood Canyon again, and Monterey.

Sure. Skip the flight and Hawaii and I'll do the couple of weeks back
and forth to the left coast. My ideal vacation has always been a
class-A for a month in the west. Maybe some day.

A few days on the ship each way from Frisco to Hawaii sounds a lot
better to me than a day each way on the plane!!!

I don't mind flying quite that much. My wife absolutely hates it,
though. For Hawaii or Australia, she would probably get over it.
Well, I'm over 6'1" and I've gon my ass, so sitting in a plane is
pure torture. Back when I flew to Zambia and back they didn't pack as
many people into a plane as they do today - I'm sure I had 4 inches
more leg room back in the seventiesorst ones today are the bloody
charters!!!! Sunwing to Cuba or whatever the planes are set up for
pymies with no legs, or possibly for Chinese tourists, who tend to be
a bit more compact.