bjoernvold.com

Well, it didn't blow the boss's mind here like I thought it would, but guess what?

I'm going to Europe when my term's up with the State!

Consider my mind blown Are you moving or going as a tourist?

Going over for a week (or two if I can swing it). Will start probably with Scotland, and work my way down to Wales, then to England. If there's time left over, I want to go to France and Spain. Sweden as well, possibly Switzerland (not sure). Not much interest in Germany at this time, but would love to get to Amsterdam also if I can.

I would recommend Amsterdam. And the Mosel Valley in Germany is a must - spend a night or two and have some white wine (It is not far from Amsterdam). In Sweden the garbage collectors are mugged and Switzerland is almost as expensive as Norway (= extreme). France is overrated at least in November, the Mediterranean coast is nice in the summer St. Raphael is nice. Cannes is a road with a small beach and a hotel nothing special except for the boats in the harbor, they are big and fine (bigger than in Monaco I noticed). My wife has a lot of family in Edinborough and she likes it a lot so I guess Scotland is fine - I thought there were only sheep in Wales tho... And I never really liked England. It starts with the food, it is worse that it's reputation. And hotel rooms are not always clean (You go to Germany for that:) London is trafic (My experience, I have only used the airport and rental cars or taxi out of the city) and the countryside is boring but with some nice pubs. . You get fantastic food in the Indian restaurants in England though.

Spain has some nice places - I have been to Mojacar. It is an ancient city on the top of a mountain with narrow streets: http://www.andalucia.com/villages/mojacar/home.htm It is not far from Grenada. But it all depends on your taste; if you are a city person more than a site person then London, Amsterdam, Hamburg might be more right for you. You just have to decide between Punk and Flamenco: I prefer the Flamenco. The Senoritas are better looking than the Punkers too.

What about the Senors? Dude, you gotta remember my type here lol

Scotland and Wales are musts. They both have a good part of my heritage (now you get to get down to why I'm so damn stubborn lol).

Addendum: Told my boss today for them to make up their minds on when my term ends, because when it does I'm going to Europe. I think I totally blew his mind for sure - he didn't respond to my email for 3 hours lol, then could only respond with one very short sentence LOL

dedanna1029 wrote:What about the Senors? Dude, you gotta remember my type here lol

Scotland and Wales are musts. They both have a good part of my heritage (now you get to get down to why I'm so damn stubborn lol).

Addendum: Told my boss today for them to make up their minds on when my term ends, because when it does I'm going to Europe. I think I totally blew his mind for sure - he didn't respond to my email for 3 hours lol, then could only respond with one very short sentence LOL

Aha That explains a lot:
There are many ancestors of Eric Bloodaxe (Eirik Blodøks) over there. He was the second Viking king of Norway and also ruled in Northumbria An area that was violently acquired in classical berserker style.
The city of Jorvik was founded by the Vikings and because the foreigners over there could not pronounce it, it is today called York. Some Viking ancestors traveled over the pond and founded the city of New York (Imagination not being a strong point). So you see; both Brittan and parts of America are old Norwegian colonies. And you have Viking blood in you - that explains your violent nature too

That's what's funny. I'm not really violent. I believe in justice though, even if it does mean to go as far as a sentence of death (but I believe death sentences should be used very sparingly, and only for very extreme cases). I like to call it the druid in me (yeah I wear a lot of hats so to speak).

Okay, to talk about the roots here of my heritage. On my dad's side of the family, is the Viking and Welsh. On my mom's side of the family, is the Scottish and Swiss. My grandfather on my mom's side of the family, pure Scottish, as was his mother before him. My mom inherited a LOT of the Scottish tendencies, and I inherited a good amount of them, although nowhere near as strongly as she had it (of course, makes sense bloodline-wise). My grandmother on my dad's side of the family did a search on our last name (Garren), and found that it dates back to 14th century Wales. The Viking is from that same side of the family. The only other thing besides the European (and the only thing "supposedly American" in me), is on my mom's side of the family and my dad's both, there is a tad of Cherokee ("American" Indian). Other than that, I'm pure European mix (which is probably why I get along with Europeans better than I do Americans, and appreciate them so much more).

To add to that, I went through 3 years of "training" so to speak in Druidism (fine-tuned a few of "gifts" that I have), but was raised more as a Mahayana Buddhist than anything by my mother.

If you noticed in that last post, I have a problem with calling anything here in the states "American" Indian, because the Indians were here centuries upon centuries before the Americans were, some of them originally coming from other lands. They are in and of themselves, who always should have, and should still, inherit the land that's called "America".

dedanna1029 wrote:If you noticed in that last post, I have a problem with calling anything here in the states "American" Indian, because the Indians were here centuries upon centuries before the Americans were, some of them originally coming from other lands. They are in and of themselves, who always should have, and should still, inherit the land that's called "America".

I love to be a smart ass...

There are not Indians, never were Indians in America (as a continent, not as a nation). Just a Screw Up from Columbus gave their names that way. I refer to them as Natives (more generic in terms but is better that calling them what they are not) or by they tribe's name. My wife is part Cherokee and I refer their side as Cherokee, never called them Indians. Same goes with the others. Beside, I refer the US as US and do not like to use the name America, sound so improper call the citizens by the continent of origin.

Anyway, I am very territorial when it comes to namings

I agree with that to a very real degree, except in calling them "Natives". Natives denotes that this is where they came from. Quite a few didn't. They came from other lands (or should I say "we" came from other lands?).