"Thom Stewart" wrote in message

Great Lakes:

They are Lakes! They are huge bodies of water! Bigger than a lot of
seas! Can be very tough in a bad weather! That doesn't make them
anything but a Lake.

And why is that, Thom? Upon whose definition of bodies of water do you base
that tidbit of insight?

They are not at sea level. They have no tides.

Actually they do have tides, albiet almost imperceptible. Near the equator
the oceans have very little tide. So what?

The flow of water is
always in the same direction, The outlet is always the same. That is
because they are Lakes.

I'll grant you that. But I was unaware that flow had much, if anything, to
do with the definition of the term lake. Many lakes have no flow whatever.
White Lake, where we sail, is really just a wide spot in the White River.
And Lake Monroe, in southern Indiana, is really just a reservoir created by
damming a river. Lake is a highly relative term.

Why must they be classified as a Sea?

Dunno. No one said they must. In fact, IIRC they are called lakes.

They are Lakes. Lakes to be damn
proud of! They are superior Bodies of Water, with their own weather
systems. They have their own ship traveling commerce that is busier than
most seas in the world.
They are a wonder of nature as they are.
What have they to gain by being labelled a sea?

Nothing. But when attempting to explain their characteristics, the term
*lake* typically conjurs placid waters with waterfowl floating about the
lilly pads and bluegill jumping to catch mayflies. The GLs are nothing like
that. Folks who see them for the first time are impressed that one cannot
see across to the other shore, or that they can be so malevolent. By
equating them to seas gives those who haven't seen 'em a better perspective.
But to my knowledge there is no movement underway to force a name change.
Although there was a movement some years ago to label Lake Champlain in NY
and VT the Sixth Great Lake. Most people said, "hogwash."

Max