"Well it isn't my problem you have trouble comprehending what I was saying."
Well, you seem to have a problem acknowleding that others on this forum have a problem with your generalizations and snipes about Americans. I, in fact, fully understood the distinction you were making about rats and "like rats." My point was that I and others take offense at your CHARACTERIZATION of Americans being everywhere like rats.
Using your logic, Australians are rats in Bali, Germans and other Europeans are
rats in the Algarve in Portugal, the French are rats in Tahiti, and the Japanese are
rats in Hawaii -- farking everywhere.
"Exactly right!! I never said that wouldn't be the case. So what is your problem?"
I don't have a problem to the best of my knowledge and to the best of my doctors'/dentists'/friends'/families' knowledge.... My point was that there are rats from every nation, and that America does not hold a monopoly on rat-ness.
And please get off your high horse about the distinction between travellers and
tourists. If you're visiting another country and you don't have a legal right to stay
there longer than allowed on a tourist visa, you're pretty much a tourist, no matter
how far off the beaten track you like to go.
You are by definition correct on this....however, in reality, you do have 2 distinct types
of tourist. You have the tourist and the traveller. This is a fact, shown by companies
which deal strictly with the 'traveller'.
A prime example of what I have experienced first hand. Quite a few years ago, Koh
Samui (in Thailand) used to be a great destination for the traveller. The island was
unspoilt and in it's natural state. You would get there via a rickety boat from the
mainland. There were no huge 5-star all inclusive resorts on the beaches, rather they
had small villas. You would buy your own food and cook it yourself. Yes, one would go
there on a tourist visa, but the fact remains, that one would live as the locals do (i.e. a
traveller). Only now, Koh Samui is full of 5-star resorts on the beaches, has an airport
(with service from ATR-42s of Bangkok Airways), and all the mod cons which would
make you feel like you never left home (i.e. catering to the tourist). Another example is
Pulau Langkawi in Malaysia.
Yes, I agree with you about Koh Samui -- very similar to what is happening on Koh Tao, and I've been to both places. We just have a different dividing line between tourists and travellers. I say that there's no distinction, they're all tourists, and you say that there's a definite distinction, according to the travel companies.
To say that the European tourist who books a package tour to Cuba is a traveller,
not a tourist, flies in the face of reality.
Exactly, which is why I never said it. Don't try and put words in my mouth. What was
that about reality?
Again, this is a disagreement on the definition of tourist, and that in the reality of the immigration/customs officials, a traveller is a tourist no matter how well-meaning his intentions of communing with the local people.
And to be equally [un]fair, remember that Club Med (i.e., French rats) were at the
forefront of the all-inclusive vacation.
Point taken (as I knew about Club Med). And again, Club Med caters to the tourist.
I agree that Club Med caters to tourists (arm-chair travellers?), but you didn't mention Club Med in your prior posts. My point, again, is that Americans don't have a monopoly on rat-ness, and that Americans such as this one will take offense at being stereotyped when other nationalities can also fall within the same stereotype.
We can parse out definitions and the semantics of tourist/traveller all day, so I'm content at just leaving it at we disagree on definitions and semantics.