On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 21:43:43 +0100, d4g4h4@yahoo.co.uk (David Horne, _the_
chancellor (*)) wrote:
>Dave Smith wrote:
>
>> "David Horne, _the_ chancellor (*)" wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > Your interests are not really important,
>> >
>> > To the contrary, this is a newsgroup where people share their interests
>> > all the time.
>> >
>> > > but the scores of tourist
>> > > buses that line Boulevard Clichy suggest it is a major tourist
>> > > attraction.
>> >
>> > So, it's worth seeing because there are scores of tourist buses there?
>> > Well, uh, it _must_ be interesting then.
>>
>> It is certainly interesting to the people who come by bus.
>
>How do you know what they think about it?
>
>My question is what is interesting about it? I've been to Paris several
>times, including taking people with me for their first time, and they've
>often wanted to go there, and I've never understood why. My grandparents
>went to a show at the Moulin Rouge, and other than the fact it was the
>Moulin Rouge, nothing they ever said about it indicated they had much
>interest in it.
The first time I visited Paris I stayed in a sort of youth hostel one block back
from Pigalle. Most of the other houses in the streets were occupied by
prostitutes. The main attraction was that it cost FF6/night for half board with
reasonably good food provided. The general consensus was that the soliciting
people paying FF6/night was not going to make anybody rich quick.
>
>Madam Tussauds is one of the most visited attractions in London, and I
>think it's worthless. Is someone here seriously going to argue that it's
>a great attraction? I don't think that popular attractions are
>inherently uninteresting- just that some of them are. And I don't see
>the attraction to Pigalle...
>
>If . shops are the pull here, then I'd have thought that gawking at
>the . workers in windows in Amsterdam's red light district were an
>"attraction"- not looking at ". shop" signs outside a building.
LOL
--
Martin
|