why do people consider san fran northern california?

It is quite clearly central.....

wouldnt that be a little bit like referring to hampton VA as being in
the northeastern US?


Chuck

yes....well then by that logic....why dont you ever hear someone call
north and south america the "new world"......

wrote in message
oups.com...
It is quite clearly central.....

wouldnt that be a little bit like referring to hampton VA as being in
the northeastern US?


Read the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildago, 1848.


Chuck

hmmm...... easier to rhyme with in songs and poems

On 15 Feb 2005 09:38:48 -0800, "
wrote:

It is quite clearly central.....

wouldnt that be a little bit like referring to hampton VA as being in
the northeastern US?

Because in olden times there were only two significant population
regions: southern California, e.g., San Diego, LA, and Santa
Barbara, and the one to the north: SF and Sacramento.


************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

"They stopped being new a long time ago. In fact, they never were
new."


yep, I agree you they were never "new" but also to say they stopped
being new long ago, by the same reasoning, wouldnt san fran n longer be
considered northern cali?

Chuck

On 15 Feb 2005 10:15:31 -0800, "
wrote:

yes....well then by that logic....why dont you ever hear someone call
north and south america the "new world"......

They stopped being new a long time ago. In fact, they never were
new.

************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

wrote:
"They stopped being new a long time ago. In fact, they never were
new."


yep, I agree you they were never "new" but also to say they stopped
being new long ago, by the same reasoning, wouldnt san fran n longer
be
considered northern cali?

apples and oranges. "They" who stopped calling it the new
world are not the "they" which still call it northern Cal.
The former no longer found it useful. The latter still find
it a useful distinction, even if it is inaccurate. I suspect
if there ever comes a need to differentiate between southern,
middle, and northern, adjustments will be made as such.
To date, there is little need. (Although I'd bet you in
some deep dark recess of DOT or some other state function,
the names are different).

You'd be surprised what folks "out west" consider to
be "New England". You'd be surprised what folks in
New England consider to be "out west". Folks from
NYC get occasionally frustrated when people say
"downtown" for "in town" because they actually come from
somplace that has a down, middle and up. (A distinction
in some places between up-west and up east as well).
They are titles, not physical descriptions.

wrote in message
oups.com...

It is quite clearly central.....

Do you think it could be as simple as the fact that it is about 280 miles
due north to Oregon and 480 miles due southeast to Mexico?

That would...um.....yup, put in well into the top half of the state.

If that isn't to your liking, I would vote for "Mid-north Central Coastal
California". That description is getting us where we need to be on this
topic.

" wrote in
ups.com:




You'd be surprised what folks "out west" consider to
be "New England". You'd be surprised what folks in
New England consider to be "out west". Folks from
NYC get occasionally frustrated when people say
"downtown" for "in town" because they actually come from
somplace that has a down, middle and up. (A distinction
in some places between up-west and up east as well).
They are titles, not physical descriptions.



In Idaho people regularly go "back east" to Nebraska.

Wine geeks regularly refer to New World Pinots and the like.

San Francisco is North of LA and that is enough.

When I used to summer in Florida and was heading back to Idaho I was going
back up north (even if I had gone to CA it would have been up North since
if it wasn't in the South it had to be North)