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.
My take on the East versus West experience is this:
The West is like a live sex show. It is really interesting but you can't really participate. The environment can be downright hostile. There aren't many places in the East that can kill you just from being outside.
The East is like a glory hole. It isn't as dramatic but the experience is much better.
Those are colorful metaphors, but the vast majority of the Western US won't kill you by just being outside. Do you think that the entirety of the West is Death Valley?(which as well you can go outside in fine for most of the year except the hottest periods of summer) You can go outside and be killed in either west or the east if you walk outside in t-shirt and shorts in subzero temps for an extended period of time--although you'd have to be a drooling moron to attempt that. People get killed from heat in both the west and the east occasionally during heat waves. As far as not being able to participate--I guess skiing, snowboarding, mountain biking, surfing, hiking, backpacking, and so on isn't participating? And yes I realize you can do all that on the other half of the country as well--the waters colder in the West Coast and the mountains are bigger, that's the biggest difference probably.
Quote:
Tobacco, peanut, cotton, corn and soybean fields are exquisite. Orange and apple groves too. Our vineyards look as nice as the West's too.
And almost all of those crops are grown out West too... So what? I've got valleys of apple and pear orchards just down the road from me.
Quote:
The layers of life, from the grass to the highest branches of the trees is inspiring and you don't have to go anywhere to experience it ( the cities and towns of the East are carved out of the forest, most Western cities are irrigated deserts). The air is moist and scented, full of life and sound. The Everglades, the rocky coast of Maine, the Great Lakes sandy beaches, Blue Ridge mountains, dense forest, marsh land and swamps are beautiful in every season (especially the fall and spring. I'm sorry that the West misses out on those season).
I must be going crazy--I could have sworn it was a crisp fall day where I live today.
Personally I don't care which giant half of the country one finds more beautiful--nor do I even know where we're supposed to draw the line in the middle, but no one seems to concerned about claiming Iowa vs. Nebraska on this thread or bragging about the beauty of North Texas. It's all subjective--I find various parts of the country pretty in both regions(like parts of the Southwest or California Coast or Cascades or New England or Gulf Coast Beaches or Florida Keys) and there's places that are fairly boring in terms of scenery. But some of the posts on here seem to imagine that the west is basically a giant desert of tumbleweeds or that each massive region is all similar in every corner... It's silly.
It's easier to read the way I did it. At least be honest that the reason you won't respond is that you won't admit when you are wrong.
I literally did not read your response.... because you are full of it. It is harder to read point by point and it is even harder to respond to point by point. It irks me when people respond in that manner because I can't simply hit reply. To reply to what you wrote point by point, I would have to literally copy and paste every one of your sentences rather than simply adding quote tags.
If you want to respond point by point, use the quote tags like everyone else. If you want to be lazy and make the conversation hard for the other person, you can deal with being ignored.
Again, it is completely over your head. This is NOT a right or wrong issue. That is the whole point. You guys who prefer the west think that people are "wrong" for preferring the east to the west. When it is simply a matter of opinion.
You can NOT scientifically quantify attractiveness of a region, it is in the eye of the beholder. You guys seem to think you can because you are overly insecure that not everyone agrees with your opinion of what is attractive.
I literally did not read your response.... because you are full of it. It is harder to read point by point and it is even harder to respond to point by point. It irks me when people respond in that manner because I can't simply hit reply. To reply to what you wrote point by point, I would have to literally copy and paste every one of your sentences rather than simply adding quote tags.
If you want to respond point by point, use the quote tags like everyone else. If you want to be lazy and make the conversation hard for the other person, you can deal with being ignored.
Again, it is completely over your head. This is NOT a right or wrong issue. That is the whole point. You guys who prefer the west think that people are "wrong" for preferring the east to the west. When it is simply a matter of opinion.
You can NOT scientifically quantify attractiveness of a region, it is in the eye of the beholder. You guys seem to think you can because you are overly insecure that not everyone agrees with your opinion of what is attractive.
I didn't realize you couldn't reply the same if I responded like that, my bad (sincerely).
"Not a freshwater lake."
You never specified it had to be freshwater.
"But not in area. The Grand Canyon is not the biggest canyon by ANY measurement."
Never said it was.
"Really, resorting to largest fungus?
Remember, I am on the side of "both places are extremely beautiful and everyone is entitled to their opinion of what they prefer", you are joining the side of "people who prefer the east are simply wrong"."
I'm not talking about beauty, I'm talking about drama.
"When did a conversation about scenery become about fauna?"
Flora and fauna are part of scenery in my opinion.
"See, if I wanted to get all pedantic like you, and use different measurements I could try to claim you were wrong and Everest is the tallest. When you look at freshwater lakes by area the east has the biggest, and third biggest, and fourth biggest, and eleventh biggest, and twelve biggest... all in one area."
You mean like what you are doing with the Great Lakes but even more so?
"And that is scenery?"
Yup.
"And that is scenery?"
Yup.
"The East has Oak savannas, west does not... point? "
"Now weather is scenery? The east has the most violent thunderstorms and Tornado Ally, the most common place on Earth for tornadoes... people chase them to look at them... never heard of a rain chaser."
Yup weather is related to scenery.
"The East is far more lush... I could go on. "
The West is lusher in places than the lushest places on the East.
"Lets not forget. My point is that both places are extremely beautiful and people are free to choose which is more attractive in their opinion. You are joining the side of people who are saying people who find the East more attractive are wrong. That they can't choose what they find attractive."
If people were trying to say that the West has better Revolutionary War history than the East I would argue that they were wrong. Saying the East has more dramatic scenery is wrong.
What if someone said that central park had more dramatic scenery than Yosemite, would you value their opinion?
Yeah, we get it guys, the west has waterfalls too... you might find this mind-blowing, but the east has canyons too.
But the Grand Canyon is not the biggest canyon in the world, where as the east has the single biggest fresh water lake in the world... and the third, and the eleventh.
The west doesn't have anything that compares to the Great Lakes in terms of uniqueness.... because the Great Lakes are one of the most unique formations on the whole planet.
There are canyons in Mexico that are longer, wider, and deeper than the Grand Canyon.
The funny thing is, people who prefer the east, say that they personally prefer the east. The people who prefer the west say that it is factually more beautiful and try to convince the people who disagree with them that they are wrong.
Sure, absolutely . . . but what can you DO with the Great Lakes apart from the obvious practical water resources (which is a huge deal)? Recreationally? They are great lakes to sail. Biodiversity? There are a few species that can only be found in the Great Lakes, but for the most part its any species that can be found in any lake. There are some shipwrecks that are neat.
Whereas the Grand Canyon has one of the largest stratigraphic records anywhere, you have the widest range of biomes with the elevation change, you have so many backcountry trips you can take, etc.
Sure there are those canyons in Mexico, but the logistics of getting there is much more difficult, fewer amenities for scientists, recreationalists, more safety risks, etc. Its still a developing country, and close to some of the areas that had drug war issues in recent times, etc. The Grand Canyon is so accessible, yet still has a remoteness you can experience at the same time.
I didn't realize you couldn't reply the same if I responded like that, my bad (sincerely).
Now I have to delete where you quoted me and then add quote tags around your response, but at least it copies over this way when I hit reply, so it is better.
Quote:
You never specified it had to be freshwater.
Incorrect, every time I have mentioned the uniqueness of the Great Lakes, I have said "largest fresh water lakes".
Quote:
Never said it was.
Ok. But the only reason I brought up the Great Lakes, is because people were saying the east CAN'T be as beautiful because it doesn't have a large, unique canyon. I simply stated that the Great Lakes are more unique than the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is simply one of the bigger canyons, while there is no bigger collection of fresh water anywhere on the planet.
Quote:
I'm not talking about beauty, I'm talking about drama.
Look at the thread title, it is about beauty, not drama.
Quote:
Flora and fauna are part of scenery in my opinion.
Not to me, they are inhabitants. It isn't like they are in one spot to look at, and everyone who goes to that spot sees them. I actually think they are more special than scenery, but not really the topic of this particular thread.
Quote:
You mean like what you are doing with the Great Lakes but even more so?
Uh, yeah. Did that go over your head? Why do you get to get specific, but bust my balls when I do?
Mangrove Swamps? Those are coastal wetlands. Let me be more specific, inland swamps. Blackwater Swamps. Something comparable to the Okefenokee Swamp. (What most people consider to be a "real" swamp.)
Quote:
It is related to scenery. When I go to a natural place I don't want to see people and houses everywhere.
That is a helluva reach to try to prove that people who prefer the beauty of the east are wrong....
Uh, completely true. And you don't like the term cause it doesn't suite your cause. (It is MORE distinct than a biome, that is why there are more of them. )
Look at the map on the wikipedia article, the east is full of tiny distinct ecoregions where the west is covered by fewer but larger ones.
"Few people know it as the snowiest place on earth. But that's exactly what Sukayu Onsen, Japan is." -- The Weather Channel
Quote:
Yup weather is related to scenery.
Related to...
Domestic dogs are related to wolves... that does not make them wolves.
Quote:
The West is lusher in places than the lushest places on the East.
Nope. Even if that lie were true, overall, the east is far more lush than the west.
Quote:
If people were trying to say that the West has better Revolutionary War history than the East I would argue that they were wrong. Saying the East has more dramatic scenery is wrong.
The thread is not about which has more dramatic scenery, it is about if people find the east to be more beautiful than the west. Again, read the darn thread title.
Dramatics had been mentioned, but still, who are you to define dramatics for everyone? Some people find a sunrise in New Hampshire to be more dramatic than a canyon in Utah... again, it is a matter of opinion especially when talking about such a broad subject.
Regardless, overall, the thread is about what people perceive as beautiful, and even if you could prove your favorite region is more "dramatic" that DOES NOT mean that everyone finds it to be beautiful. You CAN NOT prove that people are wrong for finding the east to be more beautiful than the west. *Which is the point of the thread*
Last edited by Xander_Crews; 09-26-2014 at 12:24 AM..
Sure, absolutely . . . but what can you DO with the Great Lakes apart from the obvious practical water resources (which is a huge deal)? Recreationally? They are great lakes to sail. Biodiversity? There are a few species that can only be found in the Great Lakes, but for the most part its any species that can be found in any lake. There are some shipwrecks that are neat.
Uh, you can do TONS of recreational stuff on them. You can fish, ice fish, surf, dive and explore shipwrecks, go on hikes, enjoy the beach, kite surf, kite board, wakeboard, jet ski, etc... But that is not the point. The point that was being made was that the Great Lakes are more unique than the Grand Canyon as far as scale goes. Can you sail the Grand Canyon? Does it have more unique species than the Great Lakes?
I would argue that you can do far more recreation activity on the Great Lakes than in the Grand Canyon.
But that is beside the point, we were comparing how unique they are on Earth. Great Lakes? Completely unique, nothing else on Earth even remotely like them. Grand Canyon? One of many large canyons and not even the biggest one.
Quote:
Whereas the Grand Canyon has one of the largest stratigraphic records anywhere, you have the widest range of biomes with the elevation change, you have so many backcountry trips you can take, etc.
Uh. You should look up biomes, and a map of them. Point out a map that shows multiple biomes in the Grand Canyon if you can find one.
Again, the only reason the Great Lakes were brought up was to compare their uniqueness to the Grand Canyon. Not to say they are the end all be all of the east or that they are the best feature or anything like that. Just to say that they are actually unique, where as the Grand Canyon really isn't.
Quote:
Sure there are those canyons in Mexico, but the logistics of getting there is much more difficult, fewer amenities for scientists, recreationalists, more safety risks, etc. Its still a developing country, and close to some of the areas that had drug war issues in recent times, etc. The Grand Canyon is so accessible, yet still has a remoteness you can experience at the same time.
AGAIN, not the point!
Someone brought up the Grand Canyon and said it was unique because of it's size. I said it isn't. There are FAR larger canyons on the planet. The Great Lakes are actually completely unique because of their size and arrangement.
The contain over HALF of the world's liquid fresh water by volume. There is NOTHING else like that on the entire globe. There are PLENTY of large canyons.
Last edited by Xander_Crews; 09-26-2014 at 12:12 AM..
The East has Oak savannas, west does not... point?
California is FULL of Oak savannas. In fact its one of the most iconic landscapes of the coastal hills. (You have Valley Oak savannas up and down the central coast, in the Santa Ynez Valley north of Santa Barbara, some remnant oak savannas west of LA around Agoura hills and Malibu Creek state park, down by Temecula you have Englemann Oaks in the Santa Rosa plateau, etc. Most of the cattle ranches and areas surrounding vineyards in the coast ranges are oak savannas. (now, they are likely more threathened with climate change than the oak savannas back east maybe).
Ok? East has swamps, West doesn't.
Actually California has both large freshwater marshes in the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta, as well as salt marshes. The bulrushes are known as Tule. The native americas made thatch out of it. Then you have salt marshes (not as big as those back east) where they haven't been turned into marinas/canals/harbors. The Bay area has salt marshes in the south bay itself, as well as smaller ones up and down the coast. But yeah, overall wetlands make up a tiny part of the landmass compared to the east.
That is scenery? Some people prefer large, dense populations. (And the appearance of eastern cities.)
Well, I thought we were talking about natural scenery.
The east has more ecoregions.
Maybe, but unless you know your deciduous trees really well, the average person is going to have a hard time making a distinction. Whereas in the West, the contrast between ecoregions are contrast between biomes.
Depends what your standards for "one of the largest" is and where the cutoff is. Again the East has MOST of the world's largest lakes.
Again, you can look at those lakes - they are beautiful, rest in the knowledge of living somewhere that will never face water shortages. But apart from that, there is little recreational or scientific research opportunities.
I already explained. I will not read or respond to that style of post. It is lazy and makes me do all the work.
If you don't want to be ignored, use the quote tags like everyone else.
Also, if you want to talk to me, respond to what I say to you, not other people, it gets confusing.
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.
