I think you really have no idea how Rolling Stones fans think of the dynamic between that band.

DIY. People have no idea how much money and time you save on your holiday if you don't let a travel agency organise your trip.

You're both trying to put words in my mouth I never said and try to argue my personal opinion because it doesn't fit your narrative.

Jon tries to conveys emotion by acting himself through a song. Jon acts as if a note is hard to sing because he wants his audience to believe he's doing something that's hard to do all while it isn't. He's the Steven Seagal of emotional music.

I will never understand people falling for that stuff because it's all an act and so very very obvious. It's the equivalent of pretending to be a bodybuilder while lifting a balloon. If you enjoy that, be my guest. Plenty of people enjoy Steven Seagal movies. It still won't change my opinion though.

Ofcourse I can discredit those it works for. I just explained why, IN MY OPINION, it's ridiculous to fall for it. It's still my opinion though, which is just as valid as that of anybody else.

Yes. It only works in movies if they feature good actors. Jon Bon Jovi is a terrible actor, hence it's not working. If it's obvious you're acting it's not working.

None of that was re-recorded.

He's not singing emotionally. He's acting as if he's singing emotionally. You can't sing emotionally if you need a teleprompter for every line. It's all an act.

The Boys are Back in Town.

I've no idea why people vote for Hallelujah, that's Jon Bon Jovi at his weakest trying to come across as some crooner while acting himself through the supposedly hard notes.

What's with all these teenage drama questions? "I ask this for a reason".

They're not friends. They patched things up and that's about it.

It's a much bigger coinflip with a 40 year old car. I'd never, ever buy one without a service history. Severel repairs on these cars show up regardless of how well they've been maintained and without the service history you'd never know if a headgasket has already been done, if the sunroof has been serviced, if the transmission has had its first overhaul. These 3 fixes come around with every single W124 eventually and set you back 6k at a minimum.

There's been 2 facelift models, so this doesn't clearify things but I'm going to assume you mean one from the last series, which is the worst series. You rarely see those around anymore unless they've always been in a hot and dry climate.

I daily my W124 but I own 2 so if one has issues I can take another one. If I only had one I'd be without a car for 3 weeks per year at least. You need a specialist to work on these cars. Any garage will tell you they can work on it, but they're full of it. Just because they're easy to work on doesn't mean the problems are easy to diagnose as well.

Don't ever think you're done with these cars. They're 40 years old. Even one that's been meticously maintained will have issues that'll eventually leave you stranded one day. You'll constantly be facing new problems because every part has its own lifespan. Expect to shell out 1 to 2 k annually to keep it in great condition.

If you can't make out how they feel about eachother now and genuinely think they're texting eachother for beers chances are slim you'll ever fully grasp their relationship anyway.

And do what?

It's good how you're adding this is a question for the Oasis fans considering you're posting this in an Oasis sub.

Those who weren't around when Oasis was on their last 10 years will never realize how difficult it was to work with Liam. Liam's done a lot of whitewashing in his career and his fanboys eat that stuff like hot cakes. I'd talk shit about my younger brother as well if he'd be the constant weakest link in the band yet acted like he's god gift to everyone around.

No.

I'm sorry, I must've read that somewhere else. I apologize for confusing you with another poster.

I'm sorry, I completely missed that. Still, the rest of my statement still stands. Excluding engine work my cars cost 1000 to 2000 annually to keep them on the road and they're really well maintained. But a steering pump giving up because of old age is just something you can't avoid. These things happen, and they happen every year. Mileage definitely matters and a W124 from 1986 is a different car than the one from 1990. It's really not as black and white as you make it out to be.

To do things in Europe as cheap as possible you need to book trains at least 4 to 6 months ahead. Amsterdam to Paris costs 35 Euro if booked well in advance while on the day itself it's 150 Euro. It works the same for other long-distance trains.

Europe has a lot to offer. Considering how you're American you focus on cities only because that's how your country works. It's cities with pretty much nothing in between but nature and emptiness. Europe doesn't work that way. There's loads and loads of small stops in between that are often worth it just as much as one of the big sights in the cities.

I wouldn't worry about trying to include so many things at once. You can always go back and incorporate a place you enjoyed with new stuff. My mindset is not to postpone anything because you never know where you'll be in a year.

No, it shouldn't. The petrol engines of a w124 do not last forever. And you really underestimate how much it costs to keep a 40 year old car on the road. If it was even remotely affordable, many more would do it.

You say flying out of Rome costs extra, but right now you spend a day traveling back to London, which means taking out an entire day from your holiday on traveling back. Every expense such as food, transportation, your hotel is to get that cheap flight. This makes that last day twice as expensive as a regular day. And what happens if your last flight back is delayed? You'll miss your flight home and you won't be able to get your money back either way because they're separate flights. It's a lot of risk I'd never take.

Your prices are off and based upon those of price fighters such as Wizz air, RyanAir and Easyjet. All are companies charging you extra for every little thing. You'll realize that once you add your luggage to your flight prices will increase by 30%. Then there's them flying to b-airports, meaning they're further away from the cities you're flying to which adds even more costs as you need to spend more to get into the city. And they fly at often really inconvenient times.

It's why I recommend trains for this. Europe has an excellent train network, several overnight trains (saving you money on a hotel) and they're similarly priced as long as you book in time. You say you want to visit the places you've dreamed of first, but you can make a lot more of this trip as long as you plan accordingly.

12 october: Arrive in Rome
13 october: Spend your day in Rome
14 october: Spend your day in Rome
15 october: Spend your day in Vatican City
16 october: Fly to Amsterdam in the morning, see Amsterdam in the afternoon
17 october See Amsterdam
18 october: Take the morning train to Paris, see Paris in the afternoon
19 october: See Paris
20 october: See Paris
21 october: Take a morning train to London, see London in the afternoon
22 october: See London
23 october: See London
24 october: See London

This is much cheaper and easier and considering how you've got 2 weeks I'd say this leaves you 2 extra days to spend wherever you want. I suggest 2 days in Belgium (Ghent and Antwerp are great). This way you get more value for money and your trip is a lot more varied.

No, I don't know any shops.

I recommend visiting Duomo di Milano if you're near the area of Milan. Milan is a perfect stop if you're on a roadtrip through the north of Italy. It's a beautiful cathedral, there's not many like them. I don't recommend it if you need to take a detour coming from Rome after which you've probably visited Vatican City. You will have to spend 1 to 2 days just to see a cathedral. It's not worth the hassle, it rarely is.

Rome does not have a similar cathedral to that of Milan. I've no idea how anyone can say this.

You can buy handmade leather bags everywhere in Italy. The ones in Milan really aren't any better. If anything, they're most likely even more overpriced.

You're traveling to Milan for what takes essentially half a day to see. Most of Milan can be covered in a day if planned the right way. Milan is a large city but there's just a handful of sights worth visiting. Also, if you've seen Rome then Milan won't add much anyway.

No definite plan? You sure about that?

Your budget won't get you anywhere. 20 Euro in Switzerland gets you a pizza mozzarella. Outside of the cities.

I'm sorry, but your plan doesn't make sense.

London to Paris is done by high speed train, takes about 2 to 3 hours including checkin. London to all your other destinations is a lot more difficult unless you take a direct flight. There are no direct trains from Paris to Italy either. You want to include both the north of Western Europe with the south of Western Europe. Anything is possible, but in order to do so you'd have to include a stop in between such as Zurich, for example. And even then you're stuck with layovers.

It's also much easier to travel between London, Paris, Amsterdam, Vienna and Zurich. There's nighttrains and high speed trains connecting these cities.

Also, if you're going to include Italy in your trip you shouldn't fly in and out of the same airport. Arrive in London, depart from Rome. If you don't, you spend at least 1 day traveling back, which is a true waste of time (and money, because you're essentially sleeping in a hotel just to be able to fly back).

Traveling up and down to Preston takes a long time as well and will eat a lot of your time. The trainride from London to Preston is 2 hours at its shortest.

1. Fly to London
2. Spend time in London
3. Spend time in London
4. Spend time in London
5. Travel to Preston in the morning, spend time in Preston
6. Travel to Liverpool? Travel back to London in the evening with a connection to Paris.
7. Spend time in Paris
8. Spend time in Paris
9. Spend time in Paris
10. Fly to Rome
11. Spend time in Rome
12. Spend time in Rome
13. Spend time in Rome
14. Go home

If I were you I'd leave out Preston and find something closer to London. The time you spend in Preston could be spend in Amsterdam and would probably be similarly priced.