Originally posted by Miss Korea No. Well sort of. All these (fake) quotes have been around since 99 and were started by hate sites and/or taken out of context.

Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away.



For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas?



Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route.


Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no?



Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)?



There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Lecture them

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

I yelped when I scrolled past this

I stay dying at that quote tho.

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?

Originally posted by Reductive Well, it depends. If you take the definition literally then it literally means that any foreign country can be described as overseas, more so, if one has to actually cross the sea. These days however, it is generally used—or at least in my observation for anywhere that is a long-distance away. For example, if someone were to go from Houston to Lima they could describe that trip as "overseas" even if they don't technically have to travel over water to get there. This complicates the definition when one considers the mode of transport used. If one takes an aircraft (red route), then yes, they'll have to fly over a sea in this case the Caribbean Sea and depending on the route the Pacific Ocean as well. But, what if one were to drive (blue route)? Their route would likely take them through Central America, and then down into South America. Would it then not be considered overseas? Please note that the map does not account for terrain on the driving route. Okay, so what if one travels from Los Angeles to Honolulu? Would it then not be considered overseas simply because it is not a foreign country (ie. is actually a state of the United States of America), it would then not be considered overseas as per the definition above, no? Let's say for argument's sake that one travels from Doha to Bahrain. This would require crossing the Arabian Sea by aircraft, even if you drive you HAVE to drive across a bridge over the water. But would it then still be considered overseas regardless of the small distance (136KM+)? There are so many examples. Is Key West "overseas" from Miami? Is London "overseas" from Paris? What if you took the Chunnel under the English straight to get from France to the U.K. would it no longer be overseas, but only overseas if done by ferry or aircraft?