Scott wrote:

Isn't it the other way around? Ususlly the smaller rounded mountains
like out East are OLDER and thus more worn down? Our "mountains" here
in Wisconsin, I've heard, had peaks higher than those in the Rockies,
but they lost their tops to glaciers over the years. May be an urban
legend, though....

Scott


Matt Whiting wrote:

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

"Bob Chilcoat" writes:


I'm not sure, but they were much more like the Rockies or the Grand
Tetons than the Appalachians. Huge, craggy, granite, snow-covered
cliffs, above the timberline in many cases. Nothing like I've ever
seen in PA.




Ah, the "timberline" (I usually say "tree line"); one of the defining
features of a "mountain" IMHO. People have tried to tell me there are
mountains to the east, but the ones I've seen look like the stuff
called "foothills" around places where there are *real* mountains (I'd
been exposed to the alps and the rockies and the sierra nevada before
I saw any of these so-called "mountains" out east, so I may have
gotten a kinda exaggerated definition in my head :-)).



They are all mountains. Ours are just much more mature than your
young whippersnappers. :-)


Matt

No, I said exactly what you said. I live in PA and our mountains are
much older than the rockies and thus worn down much more.


Matt