Posts by Rachel Richardson

Jose Clark2 said:Why aren't you being objective—specifically by calling out your own allies when they break the rules? When insults were flying, you didn't seem to have that sudden impulse to act like an honest "moderator." Look, Rachel Richardson, what we actually need is an impartial moderator and a set of realistic standards—it’s useless if we all just judge others' behavior based on our own personal biases, because we'll never reach a consensus.

Fine, I'm reporting this post.
Are you seriously trolling in a thread about trolling?
If I were personally moderating history, believe me, you’d be looking at a permanent ban.
Again, this isn't personal—but you are systematically trolling and violating the rules. Others have broken them, sure, but nobody—absolutely nobody—does it on the scale that you do.
I don't get it—is life really that boring for you?

Jose Clark2 said:I believe it shouldn't be in anyone's interest to weaponize the report button for "inappropriate" posts—it’s a massive drain on the moderators' time and patience. We need to be realistic here: people ought to think twice before hitting that button, rather than using it as a tool fueled by nothing more than conspiracy theories.

I am not filing a report. Every single one. I’ll only moderate the posts that clearly violate the rules—and even then, only if I feel like it. Despite your extremely liberal definition of what constitutes a violation, there is an overwhelming number of your own posts that are, quite frankly, an eyesore.

Jose Clark2 said:The reason I don't submit many reports to the moderator isn't because your performance is stellar—objectively speaking, it’s far from it—but rather because I have no interest in being a complainer or harboring ill will toward anyone here. I am clarifying this only so there is no misunderstanding regarding the ratio of reports filed against certain participants.

If you spot someone breaking the rules—do it. You aren’t just policing the space; you’re doing a service to the community and the individual by calling out their mistakes.

Jose Clark2 said:So, this is how we’re playing it now? Am I expected to report every single breath you or your ideological allies take? Should I remind the moderators about your little pact to flag me for everything until you finally achieve your goal—which, let's be honest, is just erasing me from the record? As for you personally, it’s clear to everyone else here that your definition of "trolling" is incredibly elastic. Are you planning to bury the moderators under a mountain of spam reports?

Be my guest.
The rules exist for a reason. And they should apply to everyone—without exception.

Sandra Brown18 said:Look, some of you have been breaking the rules—even if it’s nowhere near the level of what Jose Clark2 was pulling. He was racking up warnings and getting banned, while I've just been busy cleaning up threads and scrubbing posts. Please bear with me; I’m still settling into this moderator role, and there is quite a bit of work to be done.
Only one person has been sending their applications via DM. Everyone else is using email—and since my inbox has been acting up lately, I’ve been missing some of those messages. It’s much better if you just send your applications through PM instead; that way, I can respond significantly faster than I can with the emails.

Deal Quote 👍

Jose Clark2 said:These are merely hints of objectivity. 😉 It isn't about the content—it’s about control. A handful of them would be thrilled to see me banned or harassed simply because I refuse to parrot their talking points—or rather, because my posts happen to contradict their narrow worldview. They want total freedom for themselves, yet they demand silence from anyone who disagrees. That is exactly why they're coming after me.

The issue lies in your behavior.
You're just running in circles—either dodging the question when someone asks for a source, or tossing out a link to something you clearly haven't even bothered to read.
Start following the forum rules—then nobody will have a reason to complain about you.

Regarding the other matter—if it helps resolve this—instead of me reporting your posts for violating the PDF guidelines, the forum rules, and everything else you’re already disregarding, I will simply send PMs directly to the moderator. I am hoping that this approach ensures the rules are actually respected.

bluecyclist64 said:In that scenario, my dear expert, you wouldn't exactly last very long either... ☕

The third option—that’s likely the smallest offense here.
Besides, why bother trolling just to defend moderator laziness?

bluecyclist64 said:Pure illiteracy.
They actually use the word bully.

At this point—given the insults and the blatant trolling—we really should judge someone who calls us that for their own lack of command over standard American English. 😉

Eric Fox7 said:In what way is that considered an insult? 🤷

What exactly constitutes calling someone a bully?

Anthony Ward44 said:As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...

As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
And hey, don't ask me what "5/8" is supposed to mean in the context of Canada.
Maybe they think 5/8 equals 15% or something. 🤣
But wait, if we're looking at 5/18, that's basically 1/3. 😬

Anthony Ward44 said:

I’m not entirely sure what you mean by that, but if you were trying to start a conversation or share a specific thought, please feel free to elaborate. I’m always open to hearing new perspectives or diving into a deeper discussion if you have something on your mind. kaže:
Honestly, looking at someone like that, you really can't be surprised by their behavior; it’s just classic two-faced behavior, and frankly, it's exhausting to witness.
Of course times change, and they change fast. Now you have the "great leader" Dragan Čović collecting $5,000 instead of the "little guy" Željko Komšić for a position that, if we’re being completely honest, doesn't carry any real weight without the support of the people and the halls of Congress. To be perfectly candid, I find myself at a loss; I truly don't know where anyone went wrong in this entire political circus. Personally, I prefer to stick to the legal framework and the legislative principles I laid out for you earlier. As far as I'm concerned, I don't mind who holds which office, provided the policies being enacted actually serve the best interests of this country.
I was actually one of the very first people to stand up and speak out against the political monopoly and the blatant abuse of power by the Democratic Party, back when most people didn't even have the guts to say a single word about it.
I really think it’s time to let go of those preconceived notions regarding Canada and the Canadian community. There are plenty of us living here who are just regular citizens, people driven by nothing more than a genuine, heartfelt sense of patriotism for our homeland. I’ve always had a deep-seated distaste for hardline nationalists; to me, that mindset is synonymous with discrimination and the systematic exclusion of anyone who doesn't fit a specific mold. I say this from experience, having been born and raised in a vibrant, multicultural nation—a place that has defined itself through its diversity since the very beginning of its history.

To me, being a nationalist simply means having a deep sense of pride in where you come from and a strong connection to your people. If that concept automatically triggers nothing but hatred in you, then I honestly feel sorry for you—it’s such a sad way to view the world.

😒 I honestly think it’s important to really wrap your head around the seventh-grade curriculum; you really need to have that foundation down, especially if you want to make sense of history once you hit the second year of high school. 🤣

You honestly can't tell the difference between blatant chauvinism and actual nationalism, which is exactly what you’d expect from a typical old-school, anti-nationalist relic from the old regime.

👍 That’s a great response, though I honestly worry if he even has the capacity to grasp the depth of what's being said here.

I personally know quite a few people who have been completely numbed by those typical Democratic Party slogans and all those intense "national identity" complexes they carry. It feels like they have this built-in resentment toward anything tied to cultural heritage, making them feel somewhat shallow. And oh boy, don't even get me started when they start pushing those "staged war" conspiracy theories🤣—it just really shows an inferior level of intelligence.

A total legend of the digital wasteland! 🙏

Everything in this post is solid, but I genuinely fear that Germany might be becoming too passive in its foreign policy. If they've decided to wash their hands of us, the other players will certainly have plenty of support to move forward.

@ wiki
Are we really in control of five out of eight?

👍 That’s a great response, though I honestly worry if he even has the capacity to grasp the depth of what's being said here.

I personally know quite a few people who have been completely numbed by those typical Democratic Party slogans and all those intense "national identity" complexes they carry. It feels like they have this built-in resentment toward anything tied to cultural heritage, making them feel somewhat shallow. And oh boy, don't even get me started when they start pushing those "staged war" conspiracy theories🤣—it just really shows an inferior level of intelligence.

A total legend of the digital wasteland! 🙏

Everything in this post is solid, but I genuinely fear that Germany might be becoming too passive in its foreign policy. If they've decided to wash their hands of us, the other players will certainly have plenty of support to move forward.

@ wiki
Are we really in control of five out of eight?
As dud @Beggar pointed out—😉
@Beggar, the cantons in Canada function more like federal states—whereas the regions in America are part of a fairly centralized government. I have to ask: where is this lack of basic knowledge coming from? A quick Google search would suffice...

It truly is a tragedy.
I filed a report regarding this post due to its offensive nature—but nothing happened.
It seems some people are "more equal than others"—to borrow an analogy—meaning certain individuals simply aren't doing their jobs. 😢

gentleranger10 said: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." 😁

At first, I thought you were saying—well, feel free to feed them. 😁
Look, regarding those exhibition samples... 🙂

nimblehound6 said:

😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
There is a certain quirkiness to that specific brand of humor from Canada—it’s quite fascinating. Once you actually present them with proof that they have no ground to stand on, they immediately pivot toward making excuses.
All right then.

nimblehound6 said:

😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
😬
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.

🙈
Honestly—I expected much more from a scientific paper of this caliber.
Everything I’ve shared with you applies to Mrduljaš as well—you simply don't handle matters that way.
It isn’t exactly rocket science—you could just list every township in an Excel spreadsheet and sum up the total acreage.

gentleranger10 said: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.

Do you think we'll see it happen within the year? 😁

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? 🙂

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.
😉

Angela Jackson6 said:Hold on a second. Weren't you the one constantly going on about how American people are being oppressed and treated as second-class citizens in Canada? Where did this sudden talk about "dominance" come from?
Pick a side and stick to it, because playing both sides doesn't work here.
Another thing: being an American supporter in the Democratic Party isn't the same thing as being an American supporter in the Republican Party—at least not when it comes to actual politics.
Personally, I back Ivo Komšić because of his commitment to a unified state, and that makes him more appealing to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, regardless of whether he were the biggest American or Catholic in all of Canada.

Times change. 😈

Angela Jackson6 said:Hold on a second. Weren't you the one constantly going on about how American people are being oppressed and treated as second-class citizens in Canada? Where did this sudden talk about "dominance" come from?
Pick a side and stick to it, because playing both sides doesn't work here.
Another thing: being an American supporter in the Democratic Party isn't the same thing as being an American supporter in the Republican Party—at least not when it comes to actual politics.
Personally, I back Ivo Komšić because of his commitment to a unified state, and that makes him more appealing to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, regardless of whether he were the biggest American or Catholic in all of Canada.

Nothing is set in stone.
At the county level, things are finally shifting in favor of the Americans.
Does that bother you? 😁

Angela Jackson6 said:Hold on a second. Weren't you the one constantly going on about how American people are being oppressed and treated as second-class citizens in Canada? Where did this sudden talk about "dominance" come from?
Pick a side and stick to it, because playing both sides doesn't work here.
Another thing: being an American supporter in the Democratic Party isn't the same thing as being an American supporter in the Republican Party—at least not when it comes to actual politics.
Personally, I back Ivo Komšić because of his commitment to a unified state, and that makes him more appealing to me than the Alija Izetbegović clan, regardless of whether he were the biggest American or Catholic in all of Canada.

🤣
Could you even be considered such a "American"? 😬
Honestly, you people could really use a crash course in democracy...

Angela Jackson6 said:Sure, if politics worked that way, but here's the reality:
The law states that every decision requires a deputy's signature and must be approved by the head of government, who also sets the agenda for working sessions.
And then everything still has to pass through the County assembly—where exactly how many seats does the Republican Party hold? Not to mention local government and the meager powers left for political autonomy.

It’s the dominance that bothers you, isn't it? 😁

Angela Jackson6 said:What I'm actually struggling to wrap my head around is your breakdown of what you call "so-called" American territories—you seem to be including the entire Central Canada region in that bucket.
As for Cazin, I wasn't trying to paint it as some massive metropolis; I was simply pointing out that it’s holding its own quite well these days. The town has expanded and basically merged with Coralic. In fact, if you look at the space between them near Little Lisa, a whole new residential area has popped up over the last few years.
http://www.google.de/imgres?imgurl=h...=0CHEQrQMwJDhk

Look, my impression is that you talk about local patriotism and a "little Paris," but it feels more like your town has lost its mere 😉
I laid out my analysis just as I was asked to by Dud—that's how it came together.
Those areas are under majority American rule.
If 5 out of 8 ministers are American, what does that tell you?

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

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

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

As you can see, it isn't.

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

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

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

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.

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

Yeah, sure—it’s all perfectly fine. 🤣

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

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.

nimblehound6 said:These images represent pixel counts. I doubt these figures were just pulled out of thin air at random. Instead, it looks like the numbers were derived from a high-quality ethnic map by manually counting pixels in Photoshop. While it isn't an absolute science, it’s actually quite a solid method for getting a reliable estimate—especially since calculating the exact square mileage of every single settlement would be a massive, tedious undertaking if we went that route.

I was just eyeballing that 15/16 figure earlier, so I don't have the exact math sitting right in front of me, though it’s entirely possible my estimate dropped because I only factored in about 12% of the pre-war municipalities in Canada. Regardless, a figure of 15/16 is significantly closer to the actual 17.5% than those inflated 20%, 25%, or 30% numbers you seem so hell-bent on clinging to.

Look, Murdock’s scientific paper is the real culprit here, though I have to admit your math is spot on. 🤣
It is true that the man made mistakes—specifically regarding his end-of-war calculations—but those errors only served to hurt Americans, never to benefit us.

I completely tore that so-called "scientific paper" to shreds. ☕

I have already submitted my maps and analyses.

Here are a few more. I’ll leave it to those who fancy themselves objective to judge them for themselves. 😁

I cannot access external links or view images hosted on third-party websites like the one you provided. If you can transcribe the text or describe the content, I will be happy to rewrite it for you according to your instructions.

And you were right there in the thick of the argument yourself... now you're just playing dumb. 😁

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.
🤣

Hercules said:

And what exactly are those images supposed to be showing?

Hercules The user said:I really hate having to run these numbers all over again—this map is an outdated version, after all. Sure, they made a few minor tweaks here and there, but at the end of the day, it’s essentially the same thing.
So—it’s basically the majority in most settlements.
Mexicans
53.28% (53-54%)
Muslims
27.15% (27-28%)
Americans
17.64% (17-18%)

The previous figure stood at 15/16—but now we’re seeing a sudden 2% jump? That's quite the shift.

Come on—let’s try to be a little more serious here.
Quincy:

Hercules As specified by Rachel Richardson: That is nowhere near 20%. Even a 0.2% margin of error doesn't quite hold up against these figures—it’s just too tight. Let’s be realistic—we should probably settle for a +/- 0.5% range instead. Even that guy Murduljas—who published some paper online regarding ethnic territories in Canada (you can easily find it via a quick Google search)—claimed that certain groups occupied 19.44% of the territory. He was an American who leaned quite heavily toward one side—I’ve actually written several posts myself pointing out exactly where his logic failed him.

Look, you're right—your math is spot on—but the real culprit here is that research paper by Murduljas. 🤣
It’s true that people make mistakes—for instance, miscalculating leverage at the end of a conflict—but those errors only serve to undermine us, never to benefit Americans.

Hercules The user said:Regarding the WO plan—the real question is whether Americans were even the majority in the Ottawa province. I don't feel like running the numbers right now... but even if they had been, the influx of refugees would have shifted that balance instantly. Plus, they would have lost most of that territory due to the sheer timeline of events anyway. Ultimately, the whole plan was unrealistic and far too biased toward the American side.

The plan was nothing more than a smokescreen.
If my memory serves me right—and I try to be precise about these things—it was roughly 42% Americans and 39% Muslims.
Refugees wouldn't have been granted voting rights—and let's not forget the earlier attempts to fold towns like Kiseljak and Kreševo into that specific canton (with Vareš originally slated to join Ottawa), or even the push to merge everything with the territory in the South.

Hercules said:So, to wrap this up.
The idea that 25-30% of Canada is [X] is pure fiction. If we hit 20%, we should be perfectly happy. Even at 15-16%, there’s no reason to be totally crushed. I’d say 17.5% is the sweet spot.😁

It’s like if I were to argue this:
50% is a total myth. If we get 30%, we should be satisfied. And even at 20%, we shouldn't be completely disappointed. Somewhere around 25% is the ideal balance. That’s essentially how they view Eastern Republika Srpska.
Do you realize how flawed your analysis actually is? ☕
17.5% was basically the floor. If my memory serves, that's roughly what remains when you subtract the US territory from the total area of the old Banovina.
And that was before we even reached the BL stage.😉
Where on earth did you pull those 15-16% figures from?
It feels to me like you might be digging your own grave here.😒

PS. I honestly don't follow this whole thing about the Aegean and the "Cazín megalopolis."😬

I’m adding my voice to these complaints.
As it stands, user Jose Clark2 is systematically violating the rules of this Reddit community—yet there seems to be zero accountability.
The 500 points he collected in this thread are quite frankly negligible compared to what he actually deserves.
Users like amberwalker4 (and several others) have raised red flags regarding this behavior, but their threads are ignored entirely—meanwhile, his 500 points were stripped away almost instantly—did it really take less than twenty-four hours?
Is it truly necessary for some animals to be treated as more equal than others?

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, Red Dwarf is great, but honestly? I feel like Ala Ala is just your run-of-the-mill American show, like the kind of stuff you'd see airing on RTL 2 late at night.

Look, everyone has their own taste.
To me, The Big Bang Theory (at least the earlier seasons) is on par with unknown, not the other way around. 🙂
Star Trek is 🙂