> Now that I've gotten going on this stuff, I might as well follow through on the thought. Has anyone else ever wondered about the arbitrary labelling of "The West" and "The East"? I mean, they're basically on opposite sides of the world, so why does the Pacific Ocean get the pleasure of being "The Impassable Barrier" at which we split the plant apart when making our flat maps? I mean, heck, Russia and Alaska almost touch in the Pacific Ocean (and at one time, they did) so why not split things up where it's a bit easier, in the Atlantic? I think it's all because of Greenland. You know, it's not like there's anything there... There are probably more people living within a ten-block radius of me than there are in all of Greenland. I say we just start bombing the coastlines until it all falls into the sea and then redraw all of our maps in a more logical fashion. Who's with me?
>
> Don "Weird Rambler" Monkey

I saw a USA-centered world map once. It looked totally strange! Every world map we usually see here has Europe and Africa in the middle.

As for bombing Greenland, I don't agree. That would, for one thing, probably mess up the whole eco-system in the Atlantic Ocean, since there are currents going around up there which are vital to the health of most marine life around here. Also, I think most Europeans and Americans would object to having to travel "around the edge" of the map every time they cross the Atlantic. I say we bomb Alaska and north-eastern Russia to smithereens instead.

Trav"pleased with things as they are, really"holt