Originally posted by vinz07
there are lots of wonders in this world!!!!last time this banaue rice terraces in the philippines included in the list..but now why????
they're not wonderful...they're fricking farmland.
No architectural significance.
Very little engineering.
Horrible environmental effects.
Zero orginality.
Zero legacy.
Originally posted by Strangelove
Again, I only posted that list for example's sake. I doubt that any of those three sites you posted are UNESCO World Heritage Sites. And I wasn't saying that any UNESCO World Heritage site should automatically be considered for "wonder" status. I was just illustrating that architecture is not and should not be the sole determiner, as Alliance seemed to imply.
And it really should be the most important factor, because like said my examples fit more of the requirements then a few of the new wonders of the world, and they aren't wonders. And I'm sure there are many more out there exactly like that. So why those stupid things and not the other more impressive things that fit the requirements more?
Or why not just the wonders we already had, they were nice enough.
Originally posted by FishyCause people are morons.
And it really should be the most important factor, because like said my examples fit more of the requirements then a few of the new wonders of the world, and they aren't wonders. And I'm sure there are many more out there exactly like that. So why those stupid things and not the other more impressive things that fit the requirements more?Or why not just the wonders we already had, they were nice enough.
I am sure I stated that before.
Originally posted by FishyYou are mistaking the meaning (again). Those requirements are not for Wonders of the World. They are requirements for UNESCO World Heritage status. The initial run and finalists of the New 7 Wonders on the website were nominated and voted on by people online.
And it really should be the most important factor, because like said my examples fit more of the requirements then a few of the new wonders of the world, and they aren't wonders. And I'm sure there are many more out there exactly like that. So why those stupid things and not the other more impressive things that fit the requirements more?Or why not just the wonders we already had, they were nice enough.
And while I agree that architecture should be an important part (if not the most important part) of choosing "wonders", it is not and should not be the only aspect (which seemed to be Alliance's position, as I've said before)
And the 7 Wonders were updated a) because only a handful of people decided the original seven wonders and they were picking only from the Mediterranean and Middle East; the online voting is decidedly more egalitarian and b) all but 1 of the original wonders have been destroyed, and 1 might not even have existed.
Originally posted by Strangelove
You are mistaking the meaning (again). Those requirements are not for Wonders of the World. They are requirements for UNESCO World Heritage status. The initial run and finalists of the New 7 Wonders on the website were nominated and voted on by people online.And while I agree that architecture should be an important part (if not the most important part) of choosing "wonders", it is not and should not be the only aspect (which seemed to be Alliance's position, as I've said before)
And the 7 Wonders were updated a) because only a handful of people decided the original seven wonders and they were picking only from the Mediterranean and Middle East; the online voting is decidedly more egalitarian and b) all but 1 of the original wonders have been destroyed, and 1 might not even have existed.
Okay, well in that case I can agree with you.
However there is plenty of reasons that the Hanging Gardens of Babylon did indeed exist, just not at Babylon.. Which should really mean it just needs a name change.
Also this voting is not really something that should just be left to the public, at least not if they want us to take the list seriously. Brazil lobbied with their people to make them vote. I don't know how it is where you live, but nobody did that here, and I doubt any other country did.
Not to mention the legacy of something even if destroyed and the beauty it must have held while still being around, can sometimes many times be more important then some stupid statue standing over Rio. I'd still rate many of those things that used to be wonders more important and more amazing then those newly chosen ones.
Originally posted by Strangelove
And the 7 Wonders were updated a) because only a handful of people decided the original seven wonders and they were picking only from the Mediterranean and Middle East; the online voting is decidedly more egalitarian and b) all but 1 of the original wonders have been destroyed, and 1 might not even have existed.
Well, that makes more sense though. A sholar that has an idea talking about it. Not the masses that just have one favourite for a more or less stupid reason.
Originally posted by Bardock42True, but the fact that all seven were in the Mediterranean and Middle East still stands. The worldwide system works better.
Well, that makes more sense though. A sholar that has an idea talking about it. Not the masses that just have one favourite for a more or less stupid reason.
Originally posted by Strangelove
True, but the fact that all seven were in the Mediterranean and Middle East still stands. The worldwide system works better.
I dunno
The thing is it's not seven wonders because seven is such an awesome number, but because there happened to be seven great wonders. Why do we have to get 7 now? Makes no sense. We could just have a chart of the great wonders of our time..you know?
Originally posted by Bardock42
I dunnoThe thing is it's not seven wonders because seven is such an awesome number, but because there happened to be seven great wonders. Why do we have to get 7 now? Makes no sense. We could just have a chart of the great wonders of our time..you know?
"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on our Capacity for Processing Information"