On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 16:05:00 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>On 9/9/2014 3:57 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 15:36:18 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/9/2014 3:26 PM, Jeßus wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Sep 2014 06:38:11 +1000, JohnJohn >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:31:00 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/9/2014 1:52 PM, JohnJohn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 9 Sep 2014 20:09:51 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In article >,
>>>>>>>> lid says...
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know much about NZ, but who knows?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Crazy drivers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you say so. I only know it's too cold for me.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even the subtropical parts of NZ are too cold for you?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think so. I'd prefer if it never went under 18 degrees, day or
>>>>>>> night.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You'd do well in Florida.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, or parts of California I suppose.
>>>>
>>>> There's one big problem with that though, isn't there?
>>>>
>>>> I reckon I could be living in NZ right now instead of Tas - other than
>>>> we made the decision to holiday in Tasmania in 1996. It cost exactly
>>>> the same for either destination, in the end Tassie got the nod. Loved
>>>> it here right away, and I suspect similar would have happened had we
>>>> one to NZ instead... assuming I could get past the accent...
>>>>
>>> Now that's regionalism for you. I'd be somewhat pressed to note the
>>> differences.
>>
>> Parts of NZ are volcanically active, and has Maoris as well, of
>> course. We have neither of those things. Different flora and fauna.
>> They have a much wider range of climates too.
>
>Yes, a nation of micro-climates from what I have read.
>
>But are the Maoris, as natives go, any great measure different than your
>Aborigines?
There's no similarity whatsoever, aside from both being 'natives' of
their respective lands. You might as well compare New Yorkers to
Tibetans, that's how different they are. Maoris are really Polynesian
in origin, whereas Aboriginals are, well, Aboriginals.