> > For those that are not aware, Leen, Dave, and I took a trip to New Zealand, which lasted two weeks. We stayed in Auckland with Brunnen-G, who gave us a hyperspeed tour of the North Island.

I know exactly what my reaction would be to somebody else posting about a trip to the North Island, so to forestall comment from any of my outraged fellow citizens, here's a preemptive reply:

1) No, they didn't get to the South Island, which is indeed much more scenic and far cooler in every way. This was because we only had twelve days.

2) No, they didn't get to see [random must-see place in the North Island]. This was because we only had twelve days.

3) Yes, we did only cover about a quarter of one island. We only went as far north as Pakiri and as far south as Rotorua. This was because, etc etc.

I'm sure it is possible to see a lot more of the country than we did in twelve days, but my theory of travel is that it's better to see a small number of places in detail, rather than to blaze through an entire country spending an average of 4.3 nanoseconds staring at each part of it through a car window. And I refuse to believe that it's possible to do both islands in any less than a three-week trip. Six weeks would be my absolute minimum time in which to see the country properly.

Brunnen-"twisty roads have a lot to do with this"G