Guest fountainhall Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 For what it's worth, these are the 31 destinations to head for in 2010 as recommended by The New York Times. Some are obvious - Istanbul is Europe's City of Culture for 2010, the World Expo opens in a few months in Shanghai, and South Africa sees the World Cup. But Koh Kood - which The NYT bills as possibly the next Koh Samui? All the reasons at - http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/10/travel/10places.html?emc=eta1 1. Sri Lanka 2. Patagonia Wine Country 3. Seoul 4. Mysore, India 5. Copenhagen 6. Koh Kood, Thailand 7. Damascus 8. Cesme, Turkey 9. Antarctica 10. Leipzig 11. Los Angeles 12. Shanghai 13. Mumbai 14. Minorca, Spain 15. Costa Rica 16. Marrakesh 17. Las Vegas 18. Bahia, Brazil 19. Istanbul 20. Shenzhen, China 21. Macedonia 22. South Africa 23. Breckenridge, Colorado 24. Montenegro 25. Vancouver Island 26. Colombia 27. Kitzb Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 It's nice to see that Koh Kood, in Thailand, got a mention. Apparently it's wonderful if you happen to have money to burn. I read the article the Times provided and clicked on their link for Koh Kood. I stopped reading when I got to the part about how prices start at US$1788 per night for two people. That's dollars, not baht. I think I'm going to have to somehow muddle through life without going to Koh Kood, or at least the resort referred to in the article. Of course, there's always the chance of being the next big winner on the lottery . . . Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 there's always the chance of being the next big winner on the lottery . . . Sorry that's going to be me - I have decided! Quote
Bob Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Looking at the list of "the" places to go, I wonder if a few New York Times writers decided this over a very long lunch after a whole lot of drinks. Yea, Los Angeles, Damascus, Sri Lanka, etc., are "the" places to go. No thanks. Quote
Gaybutton Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 Los Angeles, Damascus, Sri Lanka, etc., are "the" places to go. No thanks. I second the motion. If the New York Times writers want to go to these places, fine with me, but as Louis B. Meyer once said, "Include me out." Quote
Guest lvdkeyes Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 I've been to Los Angeles and Sri Lanka. I can't imagine why they are on the list. Quote
Guest fountainhall Posted January 10, 2010 Posted January 10, 2010 There are a few places I'd like to visit, but I can't see the readers of the NYT heading in droves for Antarctica. Quote
