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.
I have lived in both Northern and Southern California and love both areas. I have also traveled over every square inch of the state.
I really like 11 of the 12 areas all for different reasons. The only one I don't like is Disneyland. I can't really pick a favorite. There are many very nice places that aren't on the list. The only areas of California that I don't like are the Central and Imperial Valleys.
What's not funny at all is making fun of Hurricane (yes, Hurricane) Sandy and being another person from out of the NYC area who thinks all is fine and dandy and that Sandy was no big deal. Google Ortley Beach, NJ, Mantoloking, NJ, Bay Head, NJ, Seaside Heights, NJ, Moonachie, NJ, Breezy Point, Queens, NY, coastal Staten Island, NY, the NJ to NYC PATH stations, etc etc to see damage that is still devastating to this day, 10 months later and won't see positive change for years.
Not on topic, true, but I didn't bring it up and I couldn't let that go. That's all I'm saying on it, though, so I digress.
To answer the question, I like Orange County. So I guess Newport and Laguna would be the choices here to vote for. What I don't like is Disneyland. Too touristy, gimmicky, and we have one on this coast in Florida that I've been to (Disneyland came first, I know) so to me it's nothing special, along with the fact I'm not a ride person . Also not a huge fan of LA but the scenery (everywhere in CA pretty much) is obviously great and checking out Hollywood and everything is still fun. I haven't been to Napa but I would love to go.
what, no derision for NY, NY and her snarky comment that RC was responding to?....typ-i-cal
A. The parts that aren't going up in flames because of wildfires
B. The parts that aren't prone to earthquakes
C. The parts that aren't prone to drought
D. The parts that aren't hideously expensive to buy or rent in
E. The parts that aren't financially bankrupt or close to it
F. The parts that aren't bumper to bumper traffic 24/7
Now, what part of California is that again?
This?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis
what, no derision for NY, NY and her snarky comment that RC was responding to?....typ-i-cal
That poster was correct, albeit snarky. CA gets wildfires, earthquakes, droughts, it IS expensive (much like parts of the NE), economically it isn't at its best and LA at least is known for its traffic.
What's incorrect is pegging Hurricane Sandy (while also being snarky) to be some insignificant event we all freaked out for over nothing. Want me to supply you with some current images of the Jersey Shore and coastal NYC and Long Island in ruins to disprove that thought? I gladly will, but this isn't the thread for it. Meanwhile I could show you some pictures of the current wildfire near Yosemite and daily LA area traffic it's notorious for.
A negative of the NYC area is its vulnerability to hurricanes, and point that out all you want. It's the truth. But if you do so, acknowledge their power and destruction and don't write them off, even jokily, as being nothing because Sandy was far from nothing for a large area and millions of people.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 08-28-2013 at 07:09 PM..
That poster was correct, albeit snarky. CA gets wildfires, earthquakes, droughts, it IS expensive (much like parts of the NE), economically it isn't at its best and LA at least is known for its traffic.
What's incorrect is pegging Hurricane Sandy (while also being snarky) to be some insignificant event we all freaked out for over nothing. Want me to supply you with some current images of the Jersey Shore and coastal NYC and Long Island in ruins to disprove that thought? I gladly will, but this isn't the thread for it. Meanwhile I could show you some pictures of the current wildfire near Yosemite and daily LA area traffic it's notorious for.
A negative of the NYC area is its vulnerability to hurricanes, and point that out all you want. It's the truth. But if you do so, acknowledge their power and destruction and don't write them off, even jokily, as being nothing because Sandy was far from nothing for a large area and millions of people.
I think you got defensive and read way too much into it. Just seemed like that poster was pointing out how Sandy was barely a hurricane, no one said or inferred it didn't cause a lot of destruction. So his point was also correct, it was barely a hurricane.
I think you got defensive and read way too much into it. Just seemed like that poster was pointing out how Sandy was barely a hurricane, no one said or inferred it didn't cause a lot of destruction. So his point was also correct, it was barely a hurricane.
"Your laughably overpriced city falls apart over "super storm" (barely a hurricane)."
I don't think I did. I also think it's quite obvious what was meant there, but it's fine if you took it differently. Also, it wasn't "barely a hurricane" and let me tell you why.
Quick breakdown, 1. NYC "fell apart" rightfully because Sandy was so destructive and paralyzing, and the city got back in stages - some areas quicker than others depending on damage. Some subway lines were up and running days later, while the 1 train just recently was fully operational again for example. 2. "Super storm" could be in quotes there either because of the actual unusual name choice of 'super storm' or to express it wasn't that big a deal especially when "(barely a hurricane)" was added in there. I just think there are a lot of people out there who don't quite grasp the true scale of Sandy and damage caused by it and IMO this post showed that ignorance. It was a hurricane, it was a category one that merged with a nor'easter coming from the Midwest right before it made direct landfall on NJ, making it lose its hurricane status as it was no longer just a hurricane. It quite literally was a super storm (newly coined word?), with bonus hurricane force winds. Two storms in one, basically, which is one of many reasons why it was so bad.
Carry on, back with the conversation on the lovely state of California.
"Your laughably overpriced city falls apart over "super storm" (barely a hurricane)."
I don't think I did. I also think it's quite obvious what was meant there, but it's fine if you took it differently. Also, it wasn't "barely a hurricane" and let me tell you why.
Quick breakdown, 1. NYC "fell apart" rightfully because Sandy was so destructive and paralyzing, and the city got back in stages - some areas quicker than others depending on damage. Some subway lines were up and running days later, while the 1 train just recently was fully operational again for example. 2. "Super storm" could be in quotes there either because of the actual unusual name choice of 'super storm' or to express it wasn't that big a deal especially when "(barely a hurricane)" was added in there. I just think there are a lot of people out there who don't quite grasp the true scale of Sandy and damage caused by it and IMO this post showed that ignorance. It was a hurricane, it was a category one that merged with a nor'easter coming from the Midwest right before it made direct landfall on NJ, making it lose its hurricane status as it was no longer just a hurricane. It quite literally was a super storm (newly coined word?), with bonus hurricane force winds. Two storms in one, basically, which is one of many reasons why it was so bad.
Carry on, back with the conversation on the lovely state of California.
Categorically it was "barely" a Cat 1 hurricane, closer to a tropical storm than a Cat. Hurricanes are classified by wind speed, not damage caused. If you weren't being defensive then you wouldn't keep arguing over that statement since technically it's true.
Categorically it was "barely" a Cat 1 hurricane, closer to a tropical storm than a Cat. Hurricanes are classified by wind speed, not damage caused. If you weren't being defensive then you wouldn't keep arguing over that statement since technically it's true.
I know how hurricanes are classified. Sandy had hurricane force winds when it made landfall in NJ. It was called a super storm because it merged with a nor'easter just before it hit NJ, as I said. Two storms in one with hurricane force winds, therefore a super storm. Nothing else really to say on the matter.
I can easily think of 12 parts of California that I like much better than any of those. In fact, if I were to either visit or live in California, I would avoid all 12 of the places in the poll. and make every effort to never go anywhere near any of them. I'd rather be in Taft, or El Centro, or Nubieber, or Modesto.
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.
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.
. Also not a huge fan of LA but the scenery (everywhere in CA pretty much) is obviously great and checking out Hollywood and everything is still fun. I haven't been to Napa but I would love to go.
