What Would The Internet Do? (In Which You Help Us Choose Our Vacation Spot For The Third Time)

Some decisions are easy: chicken or beef, paper or plastic, crunchy or smooth. I bet if I asked you right now, you'd choose between them without a moment's hesitation and then you wouldn't give it a second thought. (Chicken, paper, crunchy for me, please.) See? Easy.

But here is a tougher decision. In fact, here is the toughest decision, most likely the toughest decision ever made by ANYONE, ANYWHERE, and when I tell you what it is, you will see why.

If you had to choose between going to Paris or going to Rome, which would you choose?

Yeah, I know: it's a pretty nice problem to have, right? But still! The pressure! How do you even BEGIN to decide between Paris and Rome? Is it a pain au chocolat versus pizza kind of thing? Do you resort to flipping a coin? Or do you---since it did, after all, work so well in the great Burma v. India decision of '06 and the memorable Portland v. Vancouver ruling of '07---simply ask the Internet for their advice?

Well, I think you know me well enough to answer that.

Here's the situation: my friend Victoria (how big is my hair in that picture, by the way?) is getting married in London in October, and Sean and I have been planning to attend for months. While we could, theoretically, spend the whole week in London---people to see, places to go, more people to see, etc---we got this crazy idea that we might as well squeeze a short vacation-within-a-vacation in there as well. For various reasons, we've narrowed it down to Paris or Rome---I'm sure Budapest is lovely, but please don't throw it into the mix, because I did at one point and my head almost exploded from the weight of a third option---and now we just can't decide. For what it's worth, by the way, Sean is leaning towards Rome and I am leaning towards Paris, and as you can imagine, that complicates things even further.

The case for Paris:

Alright, we have been to Paris together before, it's true: but that was in the summer of 2001, which means that a) it was summer, and b) it was 2001, and from that I think you can deduce that visiting in the fall of 2008 would be a slightly different experience. For one thing, I wouldn't be a penniless student anymore (though with the crappy dollar I'd pretty much just be a penniless writer, so you know what, forget that one.)

Paris has, in its favor: the fact that I can speak some French; the glorious trifecta of bread, wine, and cheese; easy accessibility via Eurostar (no having to deal with airports, hurrah!); and the undisputable that....sigh, it's just Paris. Can you ever turn down Paris? (Unless you're Lauren Conrad, I mean.)

And yet! There is the case for Rome

Neither of us has ever been to Italy, and we've always wanted to go. And yet, while Rome would be a new experience for both of us, we've done the math and it is going to work out to be a little bit more expensive than Paris (at least to get there, since we'd have to fly.) Then there's the fact that neither of us speaks Italian and also the lingering thought that maybe we wouldn't do Italy justice in a scant three days, and perhaps we should save it for when we've got a longer timeframe so we can add in Florence and Venice and all those other cities too.

But oh my god, imagine the food.

Jun 30, 2008

Okay. Paris has Angelina for hot chocolate and pastries! And Les Refuge des Fondues where you can sign the wall and drink wine out of baby bottles while eating more melted cheese than you ever thought you could handle. Or just get a baguette, a hunk of cheese, a few apples and some wine and find a little park and watch people (my favorite is at Place des Vosges). Um, I'll be quiet now. Rome is nice, too.

Jun 30, 2008

Rome, I think.

I like Paris more, and if you were traveling in the summer when drops of sweat from your brow would sizzle on the hot Roman sidewalks, if the drops were allowed to actually fall to the ground before hitting the twelve people invading your personal space, then I would say Paris.

But Rome is romantic too, will be lovely in October when you are tired of San Francisco/London fog, and if you've never been to Italy it is most certainly time.

As far as "doing" a city in three days, well you can never see every nook and cranny of any place without living there for five years, right? So you'll do what you can, and when you go back to see Venice and Tuscany, you can stop in to Rome and say, "We've already seen the Trevi Fountain, let's sit on the Spanish steps and eat gelato instead."

(Also, if you decide to go there, I have a tried-and-true tip that will help you skip the ticket line at the Colosseum.)

aBd libbing
Jun 30, 2008

I've been to both cities in the past year and love them for different reasons, but I'd go with Paris for this trip because of the convenience of getting there from London. Plus, the Eurostar is awesome and the new St Pancras is pretty amazing. Save Rome for another time. (And not to make your head explode, but have you ever been to Lisbon? GORGEOUS.)

Jun 30, 2008

Ok, I voted for Rome, but I have never been there. I have been to other cities in Italy, and Italy is fantastic. It is a place that you envelopes you: the food, the language, and the aura of history. I never traveled there with my significant other, but I wish that I had. It is a passionate place that inspires passion. And who doesn't want that?

Jun 30, 2008

I've never been to Rome before but I'd choose Paris because it's the most fascinating city I have ever been to and also because, you know, I'd choose Paris of any other city in a heartbeat any time.

Do Paris and come back for Italy another time when, as you put it, you can do it its justice. :)

Jun 30, 2008

I like Paris. But I love Rome!

Go to Rome! It's Italy - you don't need to speak Italian, the Italians talk with their hands! And there's the Gelato! And the shopping! And the priceless art and architecture you'll find literally around every corner. Seriously, you don't even need a map - just start walking and you'll see plenty.

Go and re-enact Roman Holiday for us. It'll be gorgeous!

Jun 30, 2008

Whoa, the results were neck and neck just a second ago. I voted for Paris because I've been to both cities twice. The second time I was in Rome (in late November 01), I felt a) really out of place given that there were scant other tourists about (which is normally a good thing, really, but it wasn't this time with the gypsies and such), and b) somewhat bored. I know, I know, I probably wasn't trying hard enough, but really, I did feel like I ran out of things to do. Which is why I think Rome should be maybe a two-day portion of a larger Italy vacation (which worked really well for me the first time I went and then spent the next two weeks touring around other parts of Italy).

However, even after my second visit to Paris, I could have done and seen so much more. So best to start making that dent early in your lifetime. And I personally found it more beautiful than Rome, but that is strictly in the eye of the beholder. And if it's cheaper...

Jun 30, 2008

Rome. definitely.

Jun 30, 2008

Okay, I am currently busy touring Europe, and have just spent 4 days in Rome and 5 days in Paris within the last month. I loved Paris more than Rome, but in this case I'm going to vote for Rome because you've never been there and it is a really amazing city. You can see the main stuff and eat all the great food in 3 days, it is enough to get a sense of the city. Also, you will have no trouble getting by with English in Rome - it might be harder in some more remote parts of Italy, but they are so used to English-speaking tourists in Rome that you should have no trouble at all.

If you go, be sure to hit up the Roman Forum - it was by far the coolest ancient ruins I saw there - and for truly amazing gelato, go to Il Gelato Di San Crispino. The cinnamon-ginger flavour is to die for.

Jun 30, 2008

Hmm, I made the choice of not going to Rome a few times becauseI though a weekend wouldn't do it justice. I now think that I should have taken the trip no matter for how long, because now that I have three kids, my chances of going to Rome have seriously dwindled. So: carpe diem, go to Rome.
(of course, had you not mentioned that you had already been to Paris, my patriotic self would have forced Paris upon you!)

Jun 30, 2008

Paris. Without a doubt. Rome is tough to do in three days and it deserves more time. Besides, there are few things better in life than October in Paris.

If you DO end up going to Paris, let me know. I'll hook you up.

Jun 30, 2008

I wouldn't like to say: they're both irresistible. Paris by Eurostar -- see if you can get business class tickets as they're often no more expensive than the cheap seats. If you end up heading Romewards, then don't miss this: http://www.doriapamphilj.it/ukstoria.asp

Jun 30, 2008

Go to Paris now, plan a longer trip to Rome for next year.

Jun 30, 2008

I'm sorry, but I'm still stuck at the first question: chicken or beef?
That one always throws me off.

Jun 30, 2008

Not to throw a wrench in the works, but have you considered Bologna? Bologna is the gastronomic capital of Italy. It's less full and touristy than Rome, and the public transportation is fantastic. If you want to see the famous sites, go to Rome. If you're looking for a few low key days of wandering among beautiful buildings and fragrant bakeries, try Bologna.

Jun 30, 2008

Ooooh, this is a problem I would love to have. I have never been to Paris and the accessibility via Eurostar makes me think that it might be the best option. Plus, you've been before so you know what you might want to see on a shorter trip. You could plan a longer Italy trip that includes Rome sometime in the future. On the other hand, I LOVED Rome. My husband and I went a few years ago and had a great time. We had days that were absolutely packed, but you can see a fair amount very quickly (we used Rick Steves' suggested itinerary). The fact that we didn't speak any Italian wasn't a problem for us.

Speedy Canizales
Jun 30, 2008

Definitely Rome!

I went to visit last summer and absolutely loved it. Also - every afternoon was a gelato afternoon.

Jun 30, 2008

Rome, I'd definitely go to Rome. Paris is fantastic, no doubt about it, but Rome has something (+ further south = might be warmer in October). Chilled white wine to go with the pasta, pizza with so little toping you think they forgot something and then you taste, and the artichokes... I have never had artichokes like the ones I have had in Rome.

If you'll always have Paris, why not go to Rome?

She Likes Purple
Jun 30, 2008

Oh, this is tough, and I've never been to either place so what do I really have to offer? Not a lot. But I think your argument that Italy is best done when you have longer than three days is a solid one. And the less expensive, fewer traveling headaches "pro" for getting to Paris is also a pretty convincing point. So I "voted" for Paris, but, truly, you can't lose here.

Jun 30, 2008

Go to Rome only if you promise to return to Italy and see Cinque Terre.

Jun 30, 2008

Decisions, decisions. I love both cities and have spent quite a bit of time in both. I really think you guys should do Paris this time around because of the proximity to London and the ease of travel and save Rome for a time when you can dedicate a few weeks to Italy and travel all around. I think just three days would leave me scrambling to change my flights to have just a few more days.

Either way you are going to have a great time. Enjoy!

jennifer in sf
Jun 30, 2008

I voted for Paris too. Both because I've been dying to go back since I was there in 1998 (oh my god, I'm old) and because I don't think 3 days is enough for Rome. Also it's further, and more of a hassle in the middle of another vacation.

Jun 30, 2008

Paris now, Rome later.

If you only got to Italy for three days your first time there, you're going to feel cheated.

Jun 30, 2008

Not possible to cast a vote in this one -- you can't lose either way!

I took the Eurostar between Paris and London two years ago and it was a terrific way to travel. Can't imagine that Business class would have upped the experience all that much for such a short trip, but hey, if they're the same price...

Good luck with this decision!

Jun 30, 2008

Hnh...I've been wondering why my comments weren't getting through the last few times...seems the system didn't like the fact that I don't have a website of my own yet. I tried entering "www.Idonthaveoneyet.com" but it spotted that immediately as some sort of fake. So, Holly, with no intention whatsoever of poaching your blog, I just got through by entering that one instead. Mea culpa. But, discrimination against non-website-having readers? Hmmph! ;-)

Jun 30, 2008

Paris for sure. Both cities sound fantastic, but since you've got such a short amount of time I think Paris would work out better. I'd save Rome for another time when you can take a leisurely vacation to explore a new city. Good luck on the decision!!

Jun 30, 2008

OMG.. this one is tough one..I lived in Rome, visited Paris 4 times (and love it). But, I think the fact that a)Rome is a bit more in expenses (but then with the dollar in the dump all of Europe is expensive) b) you guys don't speak Italian (but trust me 99.8% of italians speak English and love to practice it upon tourist) that only leaves c) only 3 days - (you are right does not do its justice.)as the truly reason to skip it this time. So, as much as I hate doing this, I would choose Paris.. and leave Rome for a longer, more deserving trip... but, factoring in d) FOOD! could ruin it all and win it.

Jun 30, 2008

Paris. Only because you just CAN'T see Italy in 3 days. You have to go to Venice, and Verona, and Sienna (my favorite place in the world).
Go to Paris. Live it up. Then, in a year or two, take your time around Italy. Ride the trains to and from cities. And please, for me, eat your weight in Gelato!

Jun 30, 2008

Paris! My dad used to live there when i was at school, and every october half term holiday my mum would take us to see him there.

It's just starting to get beautiful then with the autumn trees and {crazily} the shops are starting with their christmas displays, the markets have prettier things in them, and it's so much nicer to be there when it's a little cold rather than sweltering hot. When i go back now, i always go in winter.

You can enjoy chocolate chaud more. And the restaurants are less busy. And you can sit out with a beer near a heater. And its more parisian than in the summer when all the parisians have gone on holiday.

But having never been to Rome. I may be bias?

Abigail M Schilling
Jun 30, 2008

Oh, you just convinced me of Paris with your own arguments. If you only have three days, it totally makes sense to go somewhere you've already been. Give Italy its own week!

Anne in SC
Jun 30, 2008

I vote Paris. Simply because of the time frame.
If you've been to Paris before you'll have a pretty decent idea as to what you'll want to do and your time will be well spent. Efficient. Maybe even something you've never thought about doing before.

You said there were three days. If you go to Rome, are those days taken up with travel, or are those three full days after travel?

Jun 30, 2008

I recommended Paris, although I don't like the French. For the main reason, you will get your ass pinched behind Sean's back a lot less than in Rome.

One can get good Italian food in the States. French, on the other hand, is usually dicey.

Jun 30, 2008

Oh my god. This is a horrible dilemma. I mean, I am not even being sarcastic, although of course I could but that goes without saying I think.

I vote Paris.

But it pains me. I think I can just get on board with you and every other commenter in saying that both cities are wonderful and no matter what you choose, you will have a magnificent time and wonder why you ever considered the other option.

The reason I am leaning toward Paris for this trip is purely practical. It's closer (you can take the Eurostar!) and since you've already been you won't have the mad pressure of seeing a new city in a few days. You can just hit up the best of the best and anything you've missed before.

Jun 30, 2008

Rome! I've never been there and I've been to Paris twice. And you've never been to Italy so therefore.. And plus my god the food is amazing in Italy and while I can't personally vouch for Rome you can only imagine that it is so totally delicious and the very least (but possibly best) thing is that you'd finally have the ultimate slice of pizza.
So there you have it. Do it for the 'za.

Suzy in DC
Jun 30, 2008

I lived in Paris for a summer in college then went back with my husband a few years back. Went to Rome for the first time in the summer of 2006, which was amazing. I would pick Rome since you have been to Paris before, and don't worry about not speaking Italian. Knowing even a little French like I do is surprisingly helpful when attempting to read/speak Italian. I was quite surprised at this. Plus the Italian are just SO Italian and you laugh a lot when just hanging out in a cafe or bar just listening to them speak and gesture with their hands! Ciao!

Jun 30, 2008

Rome. Romeromeromeromerome. Because of the punning potential - roaming, aroma...fuckbags, I can't think of anything else.

No, seriously, Rome. October is the perfect time to go - it'll be warmer than Paris - and you can get plenty done in three days in Rome - gelato, espresso, the Spanish Steps, the Sistine Chapel, the Pantheon, pretending to be Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday, buying too many scarves in tiny street markets - you'll fit all of that into a day, leaving you two days to wander around in a gorgeous (wine-fuelled, maybe) daze. And you don't need the language. And yes, you must go to Venice and Bologna and Padua and Turin, but, like Ahnold - you'll be back.

Jun 30, 2008

When I first started reading this I exclaimed very loudly in my head (I'm at work) "Rome! Always choose Rome!" But then I kept reading and since you're squeezing in the vacation I now vote for Paris.

I think Rome is wonderful. But it needs its own time, some focus and dedication. You can't just breeze in and then breeze out. But Paris, since you've both been there, you can breeze and out because you already have that first taste.

Jun 30, 2008

I would absolutely choose Rome. If I could only visit one other place in the world it would be Rome. And although Paris is lovely (well, that is what I HEAR), I personally think Rome has much more to offer. :)

Jun 30, 2008

i've yet to go to either city but rome just sounds amazing to me. so that's my vote :)

Kerri Anne
Jun 30, 2008

I voted for Paris, but just because you sold me with your idea of taking more time for Italy as neither of you have been.

(While reading this I also remembered that my aunt and uncle recently returned from a trip to Italy and they were there ten days and said they still felt like they rushed it a bit.)

Jun 30, 2008

What a tough decision. But I envy you so much. I think if time and money are going to be a problem go to Paris. I spent a weekend there last summer even though I'd already been once before. I just love it so much. But. If your gut is telling you that if you go to Paris you'll always be thinking 'I should have gone to Rome' well then, by all means Rome. (Sorry, I couldn't help but quote the movie :P) But really, you can't lose with whichever city you choose. Good luck!

Jun 30, 2008

because you've been before and you're only going to be there 3 days. you simply cannot do rome justice in that amount of time. i just did athens in that amount of time and it was exhausting. exhilarating but exhausting.
so paris.

Jun 30, 2008

I'm voting for Paris, and I have to admit it kind of pains me because Italy is one of my favorite places ever.

Italy is a good choice if you have a running tally with your brother about who has more stamps from different countries on their passport, as I do. But Rome, enh. Rome is not my favorite part of Italy (seriously, I'm of the school that a big city is a big city pretty much everywhere - only the scenery and the language changes) and if you're gonna go to Italy for the first time, it should be something more.

Paris is great because you'll get to see it with new eyes...eyes that can see things over five euros and not feel guilty buying it. That would be the selling point for me (oooh a pun!). Also, the fact that you've been there before and it is so no fuss to get there makes it less stressful, and for a trip within a trip, less stress is always my choice.

Jun 30, 2008

Oh dear, the internet isn't very helpful when it's 52 to 48, it is? It's like a presidential election around here!

Jun 30, 2008

OK. I have been to NONE OF THE ABOVE.

I don't get out much. Three kids under the age of six does that to you.

I vote you take a month off of work and GO TO THEM ALL. Then I can live vicariously through you.

Jun 30, 2008

DUDE. Want your life.

Also, nice LC reference.

Jun 30, 2008

Wow! That IS a tough decision.

I've been to both places and voted for Paris simply because it's easier. You can speak the language and you can get there without a plane. Enjoy Paris and have a leisurely trip. If you have to deal with flying, things can always go wrong with the airlines, especially with the Italian transportation systems that sometimes just "stop" for the afternoon...you will only end up stressed out in Italy...not because it's Italy, but because you're cutting it so short.

If you're going to go to Italy, you need the time to really enjoy it, otherwise you'll feel stressed and cheated.

Heather B.
Jun 30, 2008


The end.

Jun 30, 2008

i voted for rome. i studied there for a semester so i feel like i know it like the back of my hand. the city is amazing - it has that vintage old dirty gritty feel to it. it's easily walkable. GELATO! very romantic. fun for people watching. you really can't go wrong in rome.

and i actually think you could do justice in rome in 3 days. if you had longer, i'd send you to cinque terre and tuscany and say bypass rome.

but since i've been to both, i do think rome is doable in 3 days. let's think of the metro lines in rome. there's two. a and b. it doesn't get much simpler than that.

little white liar
Jun 30, 2008

Don't think I've forgiven you for pretending to take my advice about going to Puerto Rico and then choosing some other place like Reno last-minute. Because I haven't. But I'm a sucker for doling out travel advice while I'm stuck in (gorgeous, sunny, wonderful) Sydney.

Having missed TWO flights and ONE train to Paris, I still have to say Rome. I spent four days and five nights in Rome and I literally still have dreams of the place. I got pickpocketed there and spent the last two days on literally 40E and it is still literally my favorite city on the planet.

You can easily get a deep taste of Rome in three days. It is supremely walkable and very cheap (decent wine being only marginally more expensive than bottled water).

The ONLY reason I don't run back there every single time I'm in England - especially on the RyanAir/EasyJet 20 quid offers - is that I've already been. Which is my only defense against Paris. So there.

Photos of my few days in Rome are here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/hyperviolets/sets/934665/

And, in case your head is primed for some explosion, my second-favorite world city is Barcelona. Again, totally cheap from England, walkable in a few days, and chock full of delicious foods. Plus: siestas!

Jun 30, 2008

Super hard decision. I voted for Paris because of the not having to deal with flying and a little less money, spend it on chocolate and crusty bread and hello, it's PARIS.

Jul 01, 2008


But that is if I were choosing. If it's a vacation you want, I don't know that going someplace new, with a limited amount of time, would be all that chill. Paris is super gorgeous in the fall, the crowds have abated, and their Velieb bicycles? Quite the stellar way to see the city! You can go from Shakespeare and Co. to the Rodin to the super French Nat'l Library with the wind in your hair!

Then, next spring, you guys can get in apartment in Trestavere (sp) and explore Rome & the Appian Way for, like, 14 days.


Jul 01, 2008

I voted for Rome, but either would be lovely. Rome has spaghetti carbonara and gelato. Both of which I've been craving for some time.

But then Paris has delicious cheeses and french bread.

Wickedly tough choice.

Anne in SC
Jul 01, 2008

OK - all of this Rome talk and the photos are making me say Rome now. Only if you choose Rome, read Angels and Demons by Dan Brown (author of DaVinci Code) before you go. I read the "Large Print", coffee table version that had pictures of all of the sculptures and buildings as they were being mentioned. It will certainly make you want to see it all.

Jul 01, 2008

A lot of my travel decisions come down to food, since I spend the majority of my time in a new place eating and drinking. It's also always what I remember and miss the most once I've left. Although French food is lovely, there is really nothing like Italian food. Three days is plenty of time to eat the most indulgent food, wine and dessert in Europe. I vote Rome!

Jul 01, 2008

I can't choose (sorry!) but remember, as long as we're speaking food, both have nutella crepes. And, let's be honest, isn't that what it's REALLY all about?

Jul 01, 2008

I was going to vote Paris because it's been eight years since I've been and that was only for one lousy weekend, and I want to see where you go and the pictures you take (because it's all about me!). But...You haven't been to Rome! And Rome is seriously awesome awesome awesome. We have an excellent book of walking tours you could borrow, and oh, everything about the city is just spectacular. I wouldn't worry about waiting to make Rome a part of a larger trip to Italy because (1) you'll be back there before too long and (2) Rome for a few days is pretty overwhelming, and both times I've gone, I've felt like I needed a vacation to recover from my vacation (that's why I go to the Cinque Terre immediately after instead of to another big city). So...do Rome now. And don't forget to throw some coins in the fountain to ensure you'll return again.

Jul 01, 2008

Since you are so close to Paris and you only have a few days I say go there. You will need much more time in Italy and then what if the flights are delayed, and then you might lose a whole other day just in travel ALONE. (You know how they love to strike!)

Enjoy Paris now and then when you have ample time to visit Italy go and enjoy it because you really will want to see Venice, Florence, Rome and all the other towns along the way. It's worth the wait.

Jul 01, 2008

I voted Paris because of time (as in, how frustrating to do Italy in 3 days! See Lissa's comment), but now I'm regretting my vote. Go to Rome. You'll be frustrated at the time, but later you will have fond memories. Plus, coffee in Italy is beyond fantastic!
Rome it is then.

Jul 01, 2008

Rome. Rome, rome rome rome, rome rome rome rome rome. Rome rome! Rome rome rome rome rome. Rome.

You won't regret it.

Jul 01, 2008

I say Paris, because three days in Italy just isn't enough and you should save up your time and money and go when you have both!

While I like both cities, out of both, I want to return to Paris more...and it would be just so lovely in the fall.

Good luck with the decision.

Jul 01, 2008

Go to Italy!! Do it!! Eat pizza for me and baby too!! WOo hoo!!

Jul 02, 2008

It must be Rome..it's Italy!

Jul 02, 2008

I voted Rome, because I've just returned from a long weekend from France, and it was just not a very nice experience. I don't know if it was the people (and their absolute refusal to speak English), or some travel problems, but on whole all I can remember now is the inconveniences.

Rome, however, is just inconcievably rich to even scratch its surface in three days. I'd suggest Budapest (and not just beacause I am Hungarian) or even more so, Prague, but sadly, you've forbidden a third option... so, flip a coin?

Jul 02, 2008

I'm probably too late for this but I'd choose Rome, only because I've already been to Paris.

Jul 02, 2008

Go to ROME! You've already done Paris. Check out a new city/country and even if it's only a few days, it will be a new adventure. And when you decide to go back and really get your fill of Italy, you'll be a bit more familiar with having been there. And yes, the food must be incredible. I've always wanted to travel to Italy, but haven't made it there yet. GO. GO. GO...to Rome.

Jul 04, 2008

Been to Paris, been to Rome. Rome wins, hands down.

Rome is truly the eternal city and you will not be sorry you went.

My only caveat: if you only have a few days, it isn't enough in Rome. Too big, too much to see, too many tiny churches and charming cafes and wonderful museums. I almost voted for Paris for that reason.

But, you know, it's ROME.

Jul 05, 2008

so i am delurking to tell you this, go to Rome! i have been there twice. spent three months living in tuscany and there is nothing like italy in the world. you can still have the amazing wine and cheese and bread in italy.plus if you have never been there you should definitely go instead of doing paris again. plus if you fly ryan air http://www.ryanair.com/site/EN/ your ticket should be less expensive than the euro star. i flew from glasgow to brussels for $6. yes, that was $6 not $60. is isnt deluxe by any means but it is cheap!!! just keep your baggage weight down. Rome is wonderful and it is possible to hit all of the highlights in a day! we call it the monument marathon death march, but then you have the next day to go back and see what you really want to. the markets are wonderful! and dont forget about the gellato! plus the language barrier isnt bad if you try a few basic words. they get what you mean. Sorry for writing a book, but i felt it important for you to know!

Jul 05, 2008

it's beef, paper, crunchy and it's always, ALWAYS ROME!

Jul 05, 2008

PARIS... hands DOWN!!! Besides, my niece just spent 4 months in Rome studying, and she said it's the filthiest city she's ever seen. Adults urinating in public, garbage everywhere, stench in the streets, and just plain disgusting. She couldn't wait to come back to the US and said she never wants to go back again. That would solidify MY decision, if I were making it.

But whichever you choose, have lots of fun and, of course, post lots of photos!

Jul 21, 2008

Paris. Go and lick the windows of Fauchon for a weekend. Yumm.