U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-04-2012, 04:14 PM
 
3,644 posts, read 8,997,592 times
Reputation: 1798

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl View Post
Technically, the hills in my beloved Sainte Genevieve County are foothills of mountains.
Just really ancient ones.

St. Francois Mountains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Yeah, I dont think it's too much of a stretch to call these mountains...

St. Francois Mountains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they're just a little worn-down
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-04-2012, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,440 posts, read 31,711,412 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smtchll View Post
Yeah, I dont think it's too much of a stretch to call these mountains...

St. Francois Mountains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they're just a little worn-down
Makes me homesick just to look at the pic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 04:50 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,572 posts, read 6,496,195 times
Reputation: 2574
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smtchll View Post
Yeah, I dont think it's too much of a stretch to call these mountains...

St. Francois Mountains - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they're just a little worn-down
I don't see why so many people take issue with calling places like the St. Francois, Bostons, or Ouachitas mountains - they are, in my mind. I've only been in the Sierras in west-central Mexico outside Puerto Vallarta and have never seen huge mountains like the Rockies in person, just photos of Colorado and Banff, but I have no problem recognizing the ranges in the Ozarks and Ouachitas as mountains. To me, not recognizing said ranges as mountains is like not recognizing a Ford Ranger as a truck. Like some F-350 driver saying about somebody's Ranger "that? that's not a truck!". But then of course, where perspective comes into play, the Bostons and Ouachitas were imprinted upon me from a very young age and were the most dramatic terrain I had ever encountered at that time.

Here's a photo of he Ouachita mountains of southeast Oklahoma to compare to the above photo of the St. Francois mountains of southeast Missouri:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 04:59 PM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,440 posts, read 31,711,412 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOKAN View Post
I don't see why so many people take issue with calling places like the St. Francois, Bostons, or Ouachitas mountains - they are, in my mind. I've only been in the Sierras in west-central Mexico outside Puerto Vallarta and have never seen huge mountains like the Rockies in person, just photos of Colorado and Banff, but I have no problem recognizing the ranges in the Ozarks and Ouachitas as mountains. To me, not recognizing said ranges as mountains is like not recognizing a Ford Ranger as a truck. Like some F-350 driver saying about somebody's Ranger "that? that's not a truck!". But then of course, where perspective comes into play, the Bostons and Ouachitas were imprinted upon me from a very young age and were the most dramatic terrain I had ever encountered at that time.

Here's a photo of he Ouachita mountains of southeast Oklahoma to compare to the above photo of the St. Francois mountains of southeast Missouri:
I never got that, either.
Seems that the geologists know enough to call them mountains.
Of course, the 350/Ranger thing is compensation, you know?
Perhaps its the same thing for these ancient mountain ranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,572 posts, read 6,496,195 times
Reputation: 2574
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl View Post
I never got that, either.
Seems that the geologists know enough to call them mountains.
Of course, the 350/Ranger thing is compensation, you know?
Perhaps its the same thing for these ancient mountain ranges.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 07:16 PM
 
Location: plano
6,565 posts, read 8,094,240 times
Reputation: 5797
Quote:
Originally Posted by kshe95girl View Post
I never got that, either.
Seems that the geologists know enough to call them mountains.
Of course, the 350/Ranger thing is compensation, you know?
Perhaps its the same thing for these ancient mountain ranges.
I agree, and to not mention Mountains in Ok, Missouri leaves the wrong impression that they are both solely flat lander states. Both of the pictures above are impressive and definately mountains not in the rockies or Sierra Nevada ranges. Great thread
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 07:31 PM
 
Location: IN
20,846 posts, read 35,932,344 times
Reputation: 13287
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOKAN View Post
I don't see why so many people take issue with calling places like the St. Francois, Bostons, or Ouachitas mountains - they are, in my mind. I've only been in the Sierras in west-central Mexico outside Puerto Vallarta and have never seen huge mountains like the Rockies in person, just photos of Colorado and Banff, but I have no problem recognizing the ranges in the Ozarks and Ouachitas as mountains. To me, not recognizing said ranges as mountains is like not recognizing a Ford Ranger as a truck. Like some F-350 driver saying about somebody's Ranger "that? that's not a truck!". But then of course, where perspective comes into play, the Bostons and Ouachitas were imprinted upon me from a very young age and were the most dramatic terrain I had ever encountered at that time.

Here's a photo of he Ouachita mountains of southeast Oklahoma to compare to the above photo of the St. Francois mountains of southeast Missouri:
Ya, I agree with you on the mountain designation.

I'm still not going to call a reservoir a "lake" and I have debated that point before on other threads. Actually, one of the highest collection of freshwater olligotrophic lakes in the continental US are found in northern Wisconsin. Go to google earth and look up eagle river, minocqua, woodruff, boulder junction area of Wisconsin. Now THOSE lakes are the REAL DEAL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 07:54 PM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,572 posts, read 6,496,195 times
Reputation: 2574
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
Ya, I agree with you on the mountain designation.

I'm still not going to call a reservoir a "lake" and I have debated that point before on other threads. Actually, one of the highest collection of freshwater olligotrophic lakes in the continental US are found in northern Wisconsin. Go to google earth and look up eagle river, minocqua, woodruff, boulder junction area of Wisconsin. Now THOSE lakes are the REAL DEAL.
I've seen you spreading the facts on the difference between a natural lake and man-made reservoir before. I get it. But still places like Table Rock are pretty lakes. And the others at least provide recreational boating, jetskiing, waterskiing, tubing, swimming, fishing, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-04-2012, 08:41 PM
 
Location: IN
20,846 posts, read 35,932,344 times
Reputation: 13287
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOKAN View Post
I've seen you spreading the facts on the difference between a natural lake and man-made reservoir before. I get it. But still places like Table Rock are pretty lakes. And the others at least provide recreational boating, jetskiing, waterskiing, tubing, swimming, fishing, etc.
Fair enough. But I would recommend a trip to see Northwoods lakes if you've never been up there. I would say the difference are quite enormous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-05-2012, 07:40 AM
 
Location: Silver Springs, FL
23,440 posts, read 31,711,412 times
Reputation: 15560
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnhw2 View Post
I agree, and to not mention Mountains in Ok, Missouri leaves the wrong impression that they are both solely flat lander states. Both of the pictures above are impressive and definately mountains not in the rockies or Sierra Nevada ranges. Great thread
I never did understand why people think MO and OK are flat....all one has to do is look at a topographical map.
Folks that do that must be doing a drive by on interstates, ugh.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

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.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top