Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 06-05-2007, 06:22 PM
 
Location: Jersey City
7,055 posts, read 19,309,136 times
Reputation: 6917

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by tahiti View Post
LOL, I agree. Terra admits he/she has not traveled much is his/her short life so to declare NYC as the rudest place in the WORLD so emphatically is really quite humorous. NYC's residents are unequivocally more friendly than 20+ years ago. It's like another planet. As someone pointed out, maybe Guiliani put crack in the water.
Crack in the water and a one-way ticket outbound on LIRR/Metro-North to the homeless.

 
Old 06-05-2007, 06:28 PM
 
Location: Garland Texas
1,533 posts, read 7,240,297 times
Reputation: 653
Kansas, its just one big giant field of nothing. No hills, no trees, just flat for as far as the eye can see.
 
Old 06-05-2007, 06:55 PM
 
8,256 posts, read 17,348,308 times
Reputation: 6225
i live in LA and ppl here are very rude. as you drive along the freeways, if you want to change lanes, people will purposely speed up or slow down so you cant. then if u try and make eye contact to tell them u want to get in the lane, they look away as if they never saw u. when i went to SF, noone was rude at all, Chicago wasn't AS rude, Boston was close, NYC was the closest. But by far, LA is rudest IMO
 
Old 06-05-2007, 08:21 PM
 
Location: moving again
4,383 posts, read 16,766,060 times
Reputation: 1681
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryS80 View Post
Kansas, its just one big giant field of nothing. No hills, no trees, just flat for as far as the eye can see.
really? no hills?



no trees?



just a giant field of nothing? there are also cities such as wichita, kansas city, and topeaka
photos from google images
But I must admit that Im not too fond of ks either
 
Old 06-05-2007, 09:06 PM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,384,761 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryS80 View Post
Kansas, its just one big giant field of nothing. No hills, no trees, just flat for as far as the eye can see.


Gypsum Hills or Red Hills of Kansas

Kansas - Flint Hills
 
Old 06-06-2007, 07:19 AM
 
1,969 posts, read 6,391,828 times
Reputation: 1309
Those photos of Kansas hardly qualify as hills in my opinion. The Smokey "mountains" are hills. The Rockies are mountains. The picture posted are plains with mild crevices.
 
Old 06-06-2007, 07:23 AM
 
1,969 posts, read 6,391,828 times
Reputation: 1309
"If you don't get jolted awake by a quake and wake up in the ocean"

I really think this is an absurd concern. Statistically insignificant threat- particularly in San Diego that isn't even threatened by quakes.

"New York City is the most rude and unfriendliest place not just in the U.S. but the entire world."

Really? I don't feel that way at all. It moves at fast pace and people are abrupt, but I've never found it unfriendly.

"And its also a bulls-eye for terrorism."

Again, a statistically insignificant threat.

"If you're a terrorist from Iran"

Terrorists from Iran? I think you are confusing them with the Saudis, our good friends.
 
Old 06-06-2007, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
644 posts, read 3,321,058 times
Reputation: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryS80 View Post
Kansas, its just one big giant field of nothing. No hills, no trees, just flat for as far as the eye can see.
It has some hills but very small ones like a prepubescent girl.

Artie
 
Old 06-06-2007, 08:38 AM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,004 posts, read 77,384,761 times
Reputation: 10371
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeDog View Post
Those photos of Kansas hardly qualify as hills in my opinion. The Smokey "mountains" are hills. The Rockies are mountains. The picture posted are plains with mild crevices.
If its not a hill and not a mountain, then what is it? Its certainly not a mound! Therefore theyre hills. The Smokies ARE mountains, just not rocky, but theyre definitely mountains.
 
Old 06-06-2007, 09:12 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,841 posts, read 18,999,002 times
Reputation: 9586
Default Smoky Mountains

I agree with steve_o that the Smokies are mountains indeed. Anyone who has ever hiked in the Smokies would agree!

I am currently living in Colorado, home to more than 50 majestic 14,000 ft mountains. 14,000 seems really high...and it is, but many of the adjacent valleys floors are 7000 to 8000 ft to begin with...giving a rise of 6000 or 7000 ft above the valley floor ( these are not exact numbers ). Again I'm guessing that the valley floor adject to the Smokies is around a 1000 ft which gives a rise of more than 5000 ft. My point is: The Smokies are significant mountains! If you don't agree, take a hike....in the Smokies.

Many Blessings.....Franco
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top