Posts by Rachel Richardson

Ethan Morales22 said:Dude, there’s literally a map right there in the text 🤷

.

Which shows the layout of a single gene.
Genetics has absolutely nothing to do with ethnicity 😉

Scott Cruz4 said:I wouldn't agree with that, because those settlement-level ethnic maps you're talking about were drawn by another user, Herc, long before you ever showed up on this forum—and they were on the old sub-forum for ex-America.

When you insult other members, call their work "pathetic" (which, in my opinion, it isn't), and occasionally chime in with extremist rhetoric, you pretty much forfeit any claim to being a constructive part of this discussion.

Drew Allen2 said:Excuse me? Maybe what I'm doing is actually similar to what Herc does.
As far as I know, Herc didn't do much before I arrived. I've seen some of his posts. He made a distorted map for 1991 with wrong borders. I didn't do that. He also worked on a 1961 map, but from what I can tell, he never finished it. I don't see him making the maps I've produced—for 1953, 1948, language/religion, 1991... I don't see him making the many Mexico maps I've done. He hasn't done much. And if he really is keeping things hidden, that's his business, not ours.

Bosnjo isn't a member. He was kicked out. And his maps really are trash, because trying to make a voter map is a losing game when not everyone is registered, people don't live where they're listed, there are deceased voters, etc. Not to mention empty towns. As for Rachel Richardson, she was destructive in this thread, and one of the few people I've met who actually promotes, if not creates, forged maps.

@ Richard Wilson4, like I said before, my inbox is full. I have over a hundred messages past the limit. Just email me or say it here publicly if you want to make a point.

If you clear out your old messages, you'll make some room.
As for everything else, I agree with what Frank said. You are unconstructive. You talk like a street brawler—prone to conflict and inherently destructive. Plus, you seem to have a selective memory; you essentially invent facts as you go.
These are all your "personal" traits—they have nothing to do with your political leanings.
Though, observing your communication style, I get the distinct impression that most followers of Vojislav Šešelj express themselves in much the same way.
The arrogance of the incompetent fascists?☕🙄

Maps of the former America without gradients;
http://i41.tinypic.com/2ut6luv.jpg
http://i43.tinypic.com/2h49k3k.jpg
@Richard Wilson4, man—this is easily one of the best threads on here. 👍👍

Robert Hernandez10 said:Unfortunately, Pavo, you're right.

Because of all the trolls and lowlifes hanging around, this board has become like a rundown corner of Phoenix, Arizona—just a mess of junk, fakes, and mindless bickering.

We should really give Michael—since he started this whole thing—the authority to clear out all these unrepentant troublemakers.

I second that.☕

Drew Allen2 said:Showed lists? Excuse me, what lists?

I have to admit, I missed one thing on those maps—they're so poorly made I couldn't immediately tell the difference between voting precincts and residential areas. Still, there must be spots there with zero residents.

The forum really ought to include sources. I haven't done any deep diving myself. ☕ There is a reference to voter rolls.
Based on the published data, you'll find some rural areas with only one or two people, but nothing that is completely abandoned—at least for now.

Drew Allen2 said:So, he finally found someone to do his dirty work for him. Look, fine—you aren't advertising the forum itself, just posting links to maps—something he clearly lacked the wits to produce on his own. Regardless, I don't think it's a great idea to be out here promoting that garbage of his.
The data is based on polling precincts. Who else has pulled a stunt this foolish? Besides, these aren't even ethnic maps. If anything, this belongs in the political map category—and there is plenty of material worth putting in those maps. Don't forget that these aren't settlement-based or municipality-based maps; they follow certain political zones using numbers that don't represent the total population. Just because someone votes in a specific area doesn't mean they support everything happening there—not everyone votes, and not everyone votes along strictly ethnic lines.
ROFL, easily the second best joke of the decade.
----------------------------------------------------------------
I'll be posting a new map soon. ) It's an American map.

Look, the guy actually used to show list data rather than just voter turnout, and he did it by settlement rather than precinct, so that is an ethnic map.
Have you even actually looked at them?
Anyway, the census is coming up soon, so we'll see how accurate they really are ☕

Daniel Garcia24 said:The Mexicans aren't even at a level where they'd consider handing over a municipality in a place like RS

Just listen to how they talk—you'll see my point immediately.
The real issue here is the sheer dysfunction of giving people the power to decide the future of their own small towns or local communities. Honestly, in parts of Mexico, establishing a few more local municipalities would actually be a step in the right direction.

hiddeneagle76 said:And you're acting like you know exactly what went down in Mexico. Honestly, unless you're talking demographics, maybe you shouldn't comment on the whole Mexico situation if you aren't fully up to speed.
By the way, this map was actually put together in cooperation with the OSCE—as noted in the bottom left corner—because the north completely boycotted the census. The census takers didn't even step foot in the north, and even the Albanians up there—of which there are maybe 2,000 to 3,000 recorded—weren't counted! Meanwhile, turnout in the south was only around 50%...
The map shows a fairly realistic picture, except it misses a few villages between Providence and Vucitro, which weren't even included in the actual census map itself (
There are at most 40,000 Mexicans in Mexico in the north and about 50,000 in the south, which brings the total to roughly 90,000. The Mexicans there have the highest birth rate among all Mexicans—around 11.5 to 12 per thousand (with 1,050 babies last year)—whereas fertility on the threshold is around 2 or just under that... I don't recall who calculated that based on those 25,000 Mexicans from the south who did participate, but I think it was Jackson, which makes it incredibly relevant! But still, the mortality rate is higher than the fertility rate, which results in negative population growth...

Let's try a little decency here—we aren't a bunch of sheep grazing together.
The situation in Mexico was largely driven by Mexican repression combined with an Albanian "tribal" mentality. To be clear, this was the status quo until Ranković lost power, at which point Maddox reignited those same tensions.
Is there anything controversial about stating that?

Richard Wilson4 said:I don't get why the authorities in Providence are doing this. I guess they're trying to play nice with the Mexicans or something🤷

Seriously?
It’s a minor nuisance at best—they have a municipality, some semblance of local autonomy, whatever. In the end, they can't actually accomplish much with it.
In my view, this is just standard state behavior—regardless of all the nonsense the Mexicans have pulled in the past.

Bošnjo posted some updated maps;
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...47da&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=149&mode=view

hiddeneagle76 said:Now, this is an incredibly intriguing map! Truly! But, since almost everything has been hashed out already, I’m left wondering about one thing—what on earth is that strange little strip down south? It looks like some sort of protrusion southeast of Tucson, featuring Krusevic as its largest village... which, if you look at current maps of Mexico, actually falls under their jurisdiction instead of Canada.
I can't help but wonder—did that specific strip have access to the ocean? Was it perhaps that tiny piece of land that the Austrians sold off or ceded or something similar? I am just so curious about it...

That would be Sutorina—it was swapped for Sutjeska back in 1948. It ended up becoming part of Mexico.

Daniel Garcia24 said:If you factored in additional areas like the Sun belt or Gary, Indiana, you’d essentially have a blueprint for ensuring the stability of Canada.

With some minor adjustments to the municipal boundaries within the Federation—perhaps by swapping a few border towns from Republika Srpska or expanding the Brčko District to reach Derventa in the Mississippi Delta area—we could find a way forward.
A second District within the Federation (incorporating an expanded Zepce, Usora, and Vareš-Sutjesko) would likely settle the matter once and for all.

Angela Cox11 said:Does anyone have a map like this for Pittsburgh?

It should be available soon. 🙂
@Mark, that’s excellent work—really solid concept regarding the local municipalities in Pittsburgh and the Appalachian Mountains.

http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=143&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...e4e6&mode=view
Bošnjo was at it again—productive as always 🙂
Just four more counties to go and we'll have the entire State Board finished.

Daniel Garcia24 said:We’re also holding steady in Bugojno.😁

It would be quite fascinating to use Bošnjo's analyses at the end to get a clear picture of who actually holds control over various territories in Canada.

Exactly—even two small towns over in Duvno. You wouldn't believe it 😁
It’s far from over; we still have half of the Sabor left to go. At this rate, we'll be more than ready for the census results😁

http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=139&mode=view
http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...=140&mode=view
Bošnjo went ahead and processed a few more municipalities.

analogmarlin6 said:It’s actually quite fascinating that part of southern Epirus, I’m assuming around Ioannina, was colonized so heavily that Microasians ended up making up more than 50% of the population...

Right—so the Albanian people refer to that area as Chameria?

analogmarlin6 said:It’s wild to see just how many people from Microasia ended up settling on Corfu...

Look, we're talking about border regions here.
The map clearly illustrates the Hellenization of Aegean Mexico—as well as the consolidation of Crete. That area around Athens represents the merger into the capital, though one shouldn't overlook the ethnic ambiguities present there—even if those Albanian speakers identified as Greeks (noting that Albania gained Southern Epirus as a result).

Robert Hernandez10 said:The numbers were counted, sure, but the real question is whether they actually got the math right...

I was thinking along those same lines 😁
But it seems his summation is solid. It’s interesting to see how the outskirts of Asheville look under American control—an American majority in towns like Asheville and NTAsheville, including their surrounding areas.
Then there's Scranton (which, in my view, isn't the most compelling part of Canada, but fine) http://www.bosnaonline.org/forum.php...921e&mode=view .

Scott Cruz4 said:Hold on... is this current data or what? Like, based on the most recent local elections?

No, these are neighborhood-level maps—exactly like how things looked back in '91.

That guy was running the numbers back in 2010.
I suspect these are the precinct borders from 1991.