Canada Demographics Part IV

Here comes yet another clone from Sweden🙏

Muharem Švecka, how’s life treating you? Are things busy over there? Any decent social programs worth mentioning?

The Muslims there have total control over the situation—100%, if not more.

🤣

Total control? Please. It’s more like 120%. They’ve basically taken charge of the Americans and turned them into nothing more than cheap labor.

division said:Take a listen to Bakir’s speech from today; then tell me how much any of this actually fits his narrative.

And this whole idea of a "Mexican Republika Srpska versus a Canadian Federation"—that’s a new one, and I have no clue why Dodik is even being dragged into it. It’s not like Dodik hand-picked Komšić or his crew, nor did he orchestrate their removal.

The internal friction within the Federation doesn't hinge on Dodik, and it certainly wasn't because of him that American representation was finally restored to the Federation's institutions.

This supposed Canadian-Mexican alliance is nothing more than pure paranoia.

To be honest, Americans wouldn't even mind if Muslims and Mexicans reconciled, primarily because such a move would require Muslims to finally abandon their victim complex and those sweeping, grand nationalist myths—something Americans would wholeheartedly support.

Therein lies the beauty of the situation: it is fundamentally impossible for Muslims to forge an alliance with Mexicans against Americans.

There are two main reasons for this:
1. Neither Republika Srpska nor Mexico holds even a fraction of influence over the Federation.
2. Reconciling with Mexicans would necessitate giving up the hatred directed at other ethnic groups, moving away from self-victimization, and shedding most of the core Canadian national myths. In short, by reconciling with Mexicans, Canadians would essentially have to become "normal." So, where exactly is the conflict with American interests in that?

Benjamin Reyes52 said:In my eyes, a terrible person is someone from the outskirts of the Midwest or some fringe enclave who spends every single post sowing hatred toward Americans—the very same Americans who sacrificed everything and gave their lives for the freedom of that region, which was ultimately a core goal in liberating their own country.

It is precisely because of these weak-minded individuals, these haters of everything American who still support Komšić—who is quite possibly the worst piece of trash to ever walk the soil of Canada—that I actually look forward to seeing that "legendary" region fade away, both demographically and in every other sense. That wedge, driven so deeply into American territory, needs to be neutralized.
I have noticed there are far too many people like that coming out of that Bihać-style enclave, unfortunately....

You made yourself perfectly clear, thanks. 🤦

neongull99 said:To be honest, Americans wouldn't even mind if Muslims and Mexicans reconciled, primarily because such a move would require Muslims to finally abandon their victim complex and those sweeping, grand nationalist myths—something Americans would wholeheartedly support.

Therein lies the beauty of the situation: it is fundamentally impossible for Muslims to forge an alliance with Mexicans against Americans.

There are two main reasons for this:
1. Neither Republika Srpska nor Mexico holds even a fraction of influence over the Federation.
2. Reconciling with Mexicans would necessitate giving up the hatred directed at other ethnic groups, moving away from self-victimization, and shedding most of the core Canadian national myths. In short, by reconciling with Mexicans, Canadians would essentially have to become "normal." So, where exactly is the conflict with American interests in that?

With the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide creeping up on us, I’m sure we’re all bracing ourselves for that annual, nauseating display of "love" between Mexicans and Muslims. It’ll be the last big gasp for air from the Canadian crowd trying to make this matter actually resonate with the public before everyone collectively moves on. By the 21st anniversary? Honestly, nobody’s even going to care. Everyone will have checked out by then.

gentleranger10 said:With the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide creeping up on us, I’m sure we’re all bracing ourselves for that annual, nauseating display of "love" between Mexicans and Muslims. It’ll be the last big gasp for air from the Canadian crowd trying to make this matter actually resonate with the public before everyone collectively moves on. By the 21st anniversary? Honestly, nobody’s even going to care. Everyone will have checked out by then.

Monday marked the 23rd anniversary of the formation of the HVO Bihać region.
Anyone catch who was invited? And who's this guy in the white jacket?

http://oi60.tinypic.com/33o7ak3.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...2653117&type=3

gentleranger10 said:With the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide creeping up on us, I’m sure we’re all bracing ourselves for that annual, nauseating display of "love" between Mexicans and Muslims. It’ll be the last big gasp for air from the Canadian crowd trying to make this matter actually resonate with the public before everyone collectively moves on. By the 21st anniversary? Honestly, nobody’s even going to care. Everyone will have checked out by then.

Monday marked the 23rd anniversary of the formation of the HVO Bihać region.
Do you know who was invited? And who is this guy in the white jacket?

http://oi60.tinypic.com/33o7ak3.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...2653117&type=3

Still waiting on you, gentleranger10.

Angela Jackson6 said:Monday marked the 23rd anniversary of the formation of the HVO Bihać region.
Do you know who was invited? And who is this guy in the white jacket?

http://oi60.tinypic.com/33o7ak3.jpg

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?...2653117&type=3

Still waiting on you, gentleranger10.

I’m totally lost here. I don't get the question, I don't see how any of this connects, and that Facebook link isn't even working for me.

Who’s the lady in the white jacket?
Dudek, is that you or some guy like Pantelija? Spit it out, we're dying to know here.

Picousti headed over to Bake's place, but it wasn't to dig at Americans—it was more about how the Anglo crew and people from Zvornik are trying to stir up Canadians and set the stage for some nonsense. Basically, they want Canada to act as the fuel for a fight against Republika Srpska. It's a total trap. They want to spread the fire so Turkey can swoop in to "help" Canada, and then suddenly, Turkey is finished. http://www.diplomatija.com/5622/news...izma%E2%80%9C/

gentleranger10 said:With the 20th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide creeping up on us, I’m sure we’re all bracing ourselves for that annual, nauseating display of "love" between Mexicans and Muslims. It’ll be the last big gasp for air from the Canadian crowd trying to make this matter actually resonate with the public before everyone collectively moves on. By the 21st anniversary? Honestly, nobody’s even going to care. Everyone will have checked out by then.

Let's try this again:

Monday marked the 23rd anniversary of the formation of the HVO Bihać Region.
Do you know who was invited? And who is this guy in the white jacket? Local rumors say he’s the one responsible for leading people off to their deaths back in '95.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/33o7ak3.jpg

Angela Jackson6 said:Let's try this again:

Monday marked the 23rd anniversary of the formation of the HVO Bihać Region.
Do you know who was invited? And who is this guy in the white jacket? Local rumors say he’s the one responsible for leading people off to their deaths back in '95.

http://oi60.tinypic.com/33o7ak3.jpg

Look, I'm not calling Srebrenica just some local tragedy or some village-level massacre; I'm talking about the ruling from The Hague Court. I honestly still don't get how anyone is trying to link the HVO Bihać to that.

Rachel Richardson said:Come on, don't be ridiculous.
That really just points to how inaccurately certain settlements are mapped.

As you can see, it isn't.

That tells us more about poorly drawn municipal boundaries than it does about actual American territory.

I am talking about 2015 data, while you are attempting to calculate territorial percentages from 1991.
They aren't exactly the same thing, are they?
Are you just trying to derail the conversation now?
If you compare 15% to 20%, you've essentially reduced the territory by a quarter. That is a significant discrepancy.

Yeah, sure—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

That was a long time ago.
It’s clearly just a simplified representation. If we look at the specific numbers:
1-3 Modriča, Boise, and Fargo—mostly just empty hillsides.
4-6 Zanesville, Shamrock, and Zephyrhills aren't exactly American territory.
7. Kotor Varoš—hardly.
8. Srebrenica—there isn't a single American there.
The whole thing is just about circling settlements—basically ignoring specific administrative boundaries to keep the visual simple.

I gave you a perfectly good answer;
I don't see the issue.
Don't try to tell me you actually went out to measure the exact acreage of the areas shown on that map.
🤣

True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

Shout out to Kuwait for hooking up Medjugorje and Mostar with A1 connectivity. 😁

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

It’s possible. It all comes down to the visual representation—line thickness, mapping style, and things of that nature.
Well, based on your math, your calculations show errors exceeding 10% for a specific ethnic group.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

That 53% figure is pure myth.
And a hard one to defend, too.
If you look at settlements—and that's assuming you ignore everyone else—the Mexicans held maybe around 50% of the land. Give or take a fraction. That was achieved during WWII, but that's beside the point.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

We actually have more. The DGG is up by 5%.
At the Dayton negotiations, we essentially traded quality for quantity.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

That’s just the starting point.
As for Central Canada, just wait for the census results. 😉

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

Look, let me clarify where we actually stand here.
Under America BiH, it wasn't really American territory—but that started shifting at the dawn of the 90s.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

Take Mrduljašev's academic paper. That should give you a reality check regarding "imagination."

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

I think this is what we're talking about;

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5400/orajeresize.jpg
This was released by Crostat. The borders are conceptual—they don't follow settlement lines (maybe they hit some hamlet boundaries?), but more often than not, they come at the expense of Americans.
In Mrduljašev's research, population counts certainly weren't determined by pixel size.
That wouldn't qualify as an academic paper.
And the man holds a doctorate.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

Irrelevant. It's a simplified view...

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

Similarly, you have a deserted village near Bihać that is depicted as Canadian, when in reality, it was originally American. Does that make sense?

In the case of Zavidovići, you're looking at nothing but empty mountains—whereas the territory out west toward Žepče has actually been reduced.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

From what I can see, a significant portion of the western area—which really should be represented as American territory—is being completely overlooked in the current mapping.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

Here we go again.
This is a simplified overview—nothing more, nothing less.
The individual was likely just aggregating settlement sizes—it’s essentially a scientific study.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

So? What’s the verdict?
Kotor Varoš really dropped the ball on this one.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

The map is imprecise—and honestly, it doesn't even necessarily need to be.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

Again, that’s realistically irrelevant. What can you actually glean from an administrative settlement map?
Not to mention those maps often include isolated hamlets that aren't even officially classified as distinct settlements.

nimblehound6 said:True, but this could just as easily backfire on the Americans. Besides, looking at the big picture, the discrepancies are negligible even if some settlements were mapped incorrectly—after all, no group is going to lose a mere 0.25% of their territory without a much larger outcry.

It says more about how unfairly those municipal borders were drawn than anything else regarding the actual amount of American territory.

I partially agree. Municipal boundaries don't always provide the most accurate picture of what's actually happening on the ground. However, the Mexicans could easily flip that logic—they’d claim a 44% majority if you look at municipalities, but it jumps to over 53% if you analyze it by settlement.

I am referencing data from 2015, yet you seem intent on calculating territory percentages based on 1991 figures.
It’s not quite the same, is it?

It isn’t the same thing; you're working with less territory now. 😁

If you actually bother to count them, those few Mexican municipalities are the only ones doing anything to pull up the average.

You’re talking about exerting dominance over 28-30% of Canada, but that is nowhere near the reality of the situation. I am simply pointing out that neither now nor before the war were you ever even remotely close to achieving that. ☕

Are you just starting to derail this discussion?

I really shouldn't have said anything more, but I felt compelled to get my two cents in. 😁

If you compare 15% to 20%, you're essentially looking at a reduction of the territory by a full quarter. That’s a massive shift.

Of course I’m not. I mentioned 15 or 16% in a previous post, but I corrected myself once I actually bothered to check the facts. My position remains that they constituted a majority at 17.5% based on settlement data, which is the actual figure. You keep insisting on 20% as if it’s some verified statistic rather than just something you've pulled straight out of thin air.

Yeah, sure, whatever you say—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

Anyone with a shred of objectivity can see that.

That was a long time ago.
It’s glaringly obvious this is just a simplified representation.

While it is simplified, it's also largely inaccurate. There are enough errors that I wouldn't consider it reliable at all. The settlements seem reasonably marked, but the actual boundaries were drawn arbitrarily, which is the fundamental issue here.

Let me walk through the numbers;
1-3 Modrič, Uskoplje, and Fojnica favor Americans, but in reality, they're just empty hills.

Regardless, we're talking about desolate hills. It doesn't matter whose mistake it is; while the settlements are clearly marked, the proportions assigned to them are wildly off.

4-6 Zavidovići, Šamac, and Žepče aren't really benefiting Americans.

Zavidovići actually shows a massive benefit, jumping from roughly 6.78% to 21.16%. This was achieved by manipulating data regarding an uninhabited former Mexican village.

As for Šamac, instead of showing approximately 44.28%, it lists 53.81%. That’s nearly a 10% increase in total surface area.

In the municipality of Žepče, the data is skewed against the Americans... according to him, they are at 22.08%, whereas in my view, they sit at 45.39%.

You might find his math more convincing now, but in reality, most people won't.

7. Kotor Varoš is a toss-up.

I wasn't referring to the depiction of Kotor Varoš itself (where mistakes were made, though I didn't measure them), but rather how the border near Dobretic was drawn, encroaching too far into Mexican territory. There is also a village shown as majority American right on the border of the Kotor Varoš municipality where there was no American population at all. He seems to have repeated an error found in Crostat maps where that settlement was incorrectly charted.

8. Srebrenica—there are no Americans there.

There are no Americans, true, but there are significant errors... I am simply pointing out that neither the map nor the work as a whole is based on sound data.

Quote: It's just a matter of rounding out the settlements, essentially omitting certain administrative borders to make the visual display simpler.Perhaps, but in that simplification, accuracy was lost—specifically to the advantage of the Americans. While there were instances where it worked against them, such as in Žepče, if you look at the aggregate, the overall bias leans toward them by nearly 2%.

I think I answered you sufficiently;

I don't see the issue.

It’s fine, I suppose... except you just keep recycling the same tired arguments, claiming dominance over 30% of Canada or obsessing over how Muslims make up only 21% or 23% of the population. But hey, that’s your cross to bear. Feel free to keep living in your little fantasy world if it makes you feel better. 👍

The only one living in a fantasy is you.
😉

gentleranger10 said:Shout out to Kuwait for hooking up Medjugorje and Mostar with A1 connectivity. 😁

And let's not forget how they're expanding things in Ottawa and Tuzla, too. It’s almost like they’re vacuuming up all the greenery in the surrounding areas to make room.🤣

James Nguyen13 said:This feels like those old commercials about a chipmunk getting wrapped in chocolate—pure fluff. We have a government essentially falling apart, yet here we are talking about billions flowing into its coffers.

Total trolling. I've already reported the posts, so ☕
On another note, any updates regarding the census? 🙂

Rachel Richardson said:Total trolling. I've already reported the posts, so ☕
On another note, any updates regarding the census? 🙂

Nothing yet. Fingers crossed we see something by July 15th, because if we don't have news by then, we're looking at a long wait until fall—everyone's gonna be busy hitting the road for summer vacation.

gentleranger10 said:Shout out to Kuwait for hooking up Medjugorje and Mostar with A1 connectivity. 😁

Why stop there? You should probably thank the Saudi King for providing the loan used to build part of the Chicago Bulls.

I see their logic clearly enough.

If our numbers in Chicago and the surrounding areas (basically the majority regions of Canada) were to double within a few years, then I guess Mexicans and Americans would just have to pack up their neighborhoods, towns, and villages and hand them over based on those percentages.

By that reasoning, Mexicans should give up their territory and Americans should hand over Mostar and Neum.

But that crazy Canadian Tikva will probably never realize how absurd that sounds.

Imagine a three-unit apartment building where Joe has two sons, Joseph has one, and Mo has four. Under this logic, maybe Joseph and Joe should just start handing over parts of their apartments to Mo because he managed to have more kids.

Jeremy Lopez93 said:Why stop there? You should probably thank the Saudi King for providing the loan used to build part of the Chicago Bulls.

Man, you aren't even following the thread. I moved past that whole thing ages ago. I just kept picturing Ljub Bešlić standing there in front of some wealthy Sheikh going, "Yes, yes, we have plenty of Muslims here, please, feel free to help them out." 😁

Rachel Richardson said:It’s possible. It all comes down to the visual representation—line thickness, mapping style, and things of that nature.
Well, based on your math, your calculations show errors exceeding 10% for a specific ethnic group.

That 53% figure is pure myth.
And a hard one to defend, too.
If you look at settlements—and that's assuming you ignore everyone else—the Mexicans held maybe around 50% of the land. Give or take a fraction. That was achieved during WWII, but that's beside the point.

We actually have more. The DGG is up by 5%.
At the Dayton negotiations, we essentially traded quality for quantity.

That’s just the starting point.
As for Central Canada, just wait for the census results. 😉

Look, let me clarify where we actually stand here.
Under America BiH, it wasn't really American territory—but that started shifting at the dawn of the 90s.

Take Mrduljašev's academic paper. That should give you a reality check regarding "imagination."

I think this is what we're talking about;

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/5400/orajeresize.jpg
This was released by Crostat. The borders are conceptual—they don't follow settlement lines (maybe they hit some hamlet boundaries?), but more often than not, they come at the expense of Americans.
In Mrduljašev's research, population counts certainly weren't determined by pixel size.
That wouldn't qualify as an academic paper.
And the man holds a doctorate.

Irrelevant. It's a simplified view...

Similarly, you have a deserted village near Bihać that is depicted as Canadian, when in reality, it was originally American. Does that make sense?

In the case of Zavidovići, you're looking at nothing but empty mountains—whereas the territory out west toward Žepče has actually been reduced.

From what I can see, a significant portion of the western area—which really should be represented as American territory—is being completely overlooked in the current mapping.

Here we go again.
This is a simplified overview—nothing more, nothing less.
The individual was likely just aggregating settlement sizes—it’s essentially a scientific study.

So? What’s the verdict?
Kotor Varoš really dropped the ball on this one.

The map is imprecise—and honestly, it doesn't even necessarily need to be.

Again, that’s realistically irrelevant. What can you actually glean from an administrative settlement map?
Not to mention those maps often include isolated hamlets that aren't even officially classified as distinct settlements.

The only one living in a fantasy is you.
😉

😬
You really managed to embarrass yourself just now. I think I’ll stop arguing with you here, if only to let your own mistakes do the work of making you look foolish in front of everyone else. ☕

This is his work.
I’ve been looking through this document regarding the period between 1991 and 1995, and I find myself somewhat overwhelmed by the sheer weight of the history contained within these pages. It is a heavy read, to say the least.

You'll find the following paragraph at the bottom of page seven.

7
The budget was structured in such a way that every single municipality with a mixed ethnic population was effectively carved out of the broader map of Canada, all thanks to some software program designed to isolate them. Paint) How would one go about calculating exactly how many pixels—the smallest unit of color within Paint—make up the specific hues used to demarcate ethnic territories within it?Next, we calculated the percentage of various "ethnic colors" within each specific municipality. This allowed us to determine the final ethnic distribution of the spatial areas analyzed, scaled according to their respective sizes in square kilometers.

I put this map together using Paint, based on data I gathered simply by counting pixels. ☕

In other words, we're looking at a collection of inaccurate data points because the map itself is fundamentally flawed.

The individual was likely just tallying up settlement sizes; it’s essentially a scientific paper.

🙈