Oct. 17th, 2006
Why do they have to limit the list to seven? I think "they" (whoever the hell THEY are) should consider a longer list of "Wonders Of The World". And for criteria? The only criteria is "The object must have been discovered before 2000." What a load of bullshit! Age should be one primary factor, and condition another.
I remember reading about the Seven Wonders Of The World when I was a child, and feeling vaguely suspicious that some of them were myths. Here's the 21 finalists they've established so far. I've made bold those that I feel should make the final list. Which ones do YOU think should be on the final list? Do you think they should limit it to seven?
Votes can be made online, at www.new7wonders.com.
The 21 finalists for the New Seven Wonders of the World, alphabetically:
1 Acropolis, Athens, Greece
2 Alhambra, Granada, Spain
3 Angkor Wat temple, Cambodia
4 Chichen Itza Aztec site, Yucatan, Mexico
5 Christ the Redeemer, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
6 Colosseum, Rome
7 Easter Island Statues, Chile
8 Eiffel Tower, Paris
9 Great Wall, China
10 Hagia Sophia church, Istanbul, Turkey
11 Kyomizu Temple, Kyoto, Japan
12 Kremlin/St.Basil's, Moscow
13 Machu Picchu, Peru
14 Neuschwanstein Castle, Fussen, Germany
15 Petra ancient city, Jordan
16 Pyramids of Giza, Egypt - There's no question this should remain on the list. Geez.
17 Statue of Liberty, New York
18 Stonehenge, Amesbury, United Kingdom
19 Sydney Opera House, Australia
20 Taj Mahal, Agra, India
21 Timbuktu city, Mali
Here's the article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061017/od_nm/britain_stonehenge_dc_1