Landing in Seattle today, the pilot on NWA 157 observed: look out your window to the north. There's "Baker Mountain," he said.
Uh. Great job, guys...seriously. Bringing that A320 from Minneapolis into Seattle. So smooth. I bow down in respect. Beat the hell outta the DC-9 from Grand Rapids to Minneapolis. THAT was hell. Especically for those in the LAST row.
But. It's called...Mount Baker, not "Baker Mountain." Here ya go:
Notice to fashionista tourists: The rule is, NO leather loafers allowed when hiking in these parts. Just so we're clear.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at July 26, 2005 09:43 PM
When does the nomenclacture switch from XXX Mountain to Mount XXX? We've got Mount Ranier, Mount St. Helens, Mount Baker, Mount Hood, etc. We've also got Tiger Mountain, Cougar Mountain, Squak Mountain -- all of which are foothills in the Cascades.
Is it all about size? How big before a Mountain becomes a Mount?
Posted by: Howard Hansen at July 27, 2005 10:24 AMHoward, I think you're on to something. All the smaller ones around here seem to be called XX Mountain, and all the big ones, Mount XX.
Mount Si, at about, what? 4,000 feet high? might be the about the smallest "Mount" in these parts, although on Orcas Island, there's Mount Constitution, which is just under 3K feet high.
Posted by: Matt R. at July 27, 2005 11:54 AM