You know you're from New Zealand when...

they'd say hollywood and then ask "what's kiwi?"

haha, that reminds me. I called up my niece this morning to wish her happy bday(she just turned 11) and she asked if me they had "screens" there. I asked "what do you mean" and she said "someone told her they dont have window screens there." WTF? who comes up with something SO random like that?

 

NO, it's just that people overseas tend to think we have no idea down here. Australia and New Zealand are actual living breathing countries. AS much as that would shock some.

 

i like how NZ is like the new timbucktu at the moment...the clip on the news the other night of the commentator trying to say that michael cambell was a new zealander was so funny..he couldn't even pronounce it properly..and that's not even a place name like Taumata whakatangi hangakoauau o tamatea turi pukakapiki maunga horo nuku pokai whenua kitanatahu(the longest place name in the world)

 

I don't think people even know what a New Zealander is no offence, we're only a little ahead of you in that respect i think. It's like we're aliens or something. Bugger the fact the the foundations of Australia were around before amy in the Nthrn hemisphere.

 

lol, sophie, i assume you mean the golf announcer who said "new zealer" or something like that..he immediately corrected it and said "thats a mouthful"..not really When the presidents cup started the guy who annouced michael campbell originally said he was australian..ha! oh, btw, we won

how do you figure trickster? There were europeans in europe like 800,000 years ago...in australia they date only to like 50,000 years or so.

ah, i know how you all feel. Vermont is quite like the New Zealand of the US. No one really knows where it is or that it is even a state. Heck, i've had people refuse to accept my ID when i've left the state because they said there was no US state called Vermont. Vermont is quite like NZ geographically(ok, not an island) and politically... kinda interesting in that regard

 

I said the foundations, the land? Tis true i'm afraid matey

 

riiiiiiiiiiight

 

God that's the most annoying thing people say


And Australia is the first. I never said it is the most rivoting piece of info, just the truth.

 

You know you're from NZ when a dingo doesn't eat your baby.

haha i'm just kidding, i couldn't resist.

 

And, when instead of picking up a chick at a bar, you're picking up a sheep in a paddock (sorry couldn't resist a sheep joke)

 

But it's okay, the sheep find me irresistable. It's mutual.

 

Funny boy

 

actually the aborigines are such an ancient people they evolved into humans in Australia, wheres every other race of people in the world came out of Africa. Its uncomprehendable (hahaha my sexy spelling) how old the land and the native people of Australia are.

 

from what i've read, Australian Aborigines came to australia 40-50,000 years ago via new guinea(presumably from Asia/Africa). Homo sapiens have been around for 160,000 years.

i'm not sure how technically the land would be any older. All of our continents would have been combined at one point in a massive supercontinent(s). The land is always changing....

 

WHAT?
Okay, Australia has been isolated (i.e. separate from other continents) for 50 million years.
It's pretty much certain that the ancestors to human evolved in Africa only around 5-7million years ago.



The "Out of Africa" hypothesis of human evolution is widely accepted with much support. (I can explain the support if you reeeeeeeeaaaally want it)

H. erectus did colonise parts of Asia and Europe,

But theory states that only African Homo erectus gave rise to modern day homo sapiens and it was only 100,000 years ago that humans left Africa to give rise to populations around the world.


So i'm inclined to disagree with the above statement.


But it doesn't define where and when different human populations first settled/established. Who knows what the migration patterns of early homo sapiens were. It's probably been discussed.. but i haven't heard about it. Anyone know a Paleo-anthropologist? Basically, as far as I know, Trickster's statement hasn't been proven wrong.

 

They keep moving the date back for when sapiens used fire;
was 40,000 is now 60,000 years ago. I think it'll keep on moving.

They found a kingdom under the water off the south coast of India recently. The guy in charge of the place was a mortal man called Krishna...

Our history is much MUCH older and we don't give our ancestors enough credit. I think we were all travelling about with no probs. There are Australian aborigines native to an island off the southern tip of Argentina. We all had no problem with the seas and oceans. NZers should know that!

Not to mention the fact that there was less watery expanses to cross anyway. Go and look up 'Gondwanaland'.

~

 

OK, for those who diverged from my point. I did not say that the Aussie people were older i said the land, soil, foundation, terra firma (whatever the hell you want to call it).

While we all were joined, considering separation, the land we live upon, this part, is the oldest of all. Consult geographical maps, historians, or even soil experts if you want. That's a fact now lets move on people

The Aussie's are going to kick arse in the super series.

 

The land is old because there's nothing going on (geologically). You silly australians. Where are your fault lines? HEY?

We learnt about the Murray-Darling river basin, and your guys' water use.. and basically the salinization of [parts of] Australia. And also used you guys as an example for something to do with weather patterns.. and something else to do with the soil Iron content. All I have to say is LASHED.

I mean it in a nice way.

 

hahaha vimmy you're funny... you're also correct... but still funny. LASHED... haven't heard that in years.

 

the scary thing is that Lashed seems to be a wellington area only term...no-one i've talked from outside to had any idea what i was talking about when i said they were lashed.

it's a travesty.