Aceflyer

I think the linear one looks simpler and is less likely to be accidentally screwed up in terms of formatting by someone who drops by and edits it. Just my opinion, though.

ROFL

LoL agreed. Most of my chats are inactive though.

Agreed Dav.

Quit taking this off-topic. Quit flaming me. I made no claim. I asked you to prove your claim, and you responded with fake evidence. Not my problem.

Great stuff, thanks for letting us know Mav!

I don't think there's a way to manually reset names... currently you can only set email once, a practice that was implemented to discourage name-trading. Perhaps the SSC Operators would be able to better assist you.

Agreed Dav.

That's probably it D1.

Very strange. Maybe it was some program causing a memory leak (that was later fixed by the restart) that caused the problem. In any case, glad it's resolved now.

ROFL Root.

I think this topic better belongs in General Development - moved.

Yeah that was fast.

Entries merged.

Actually I don't even think Petraeus' statement was propaganda, as he was briefing the US Congress when he made that statement. He wasn't doing an interview or a press conference.

ROFL. I !@#$%^&*umed that your evidence was correct (since you are, supposedly, someone knowledgeable in the subject) and went straight to analyzing what evidence you provided. I never claimed to be an expert on African geopolitics, and it was reasonable that I asked you to provide proof. It was, OTOH, not reasonable that you purposely provided fake evidence.

Riots or not it's still a significant border change. Yep, which is why I lumped them together as one pseudo-en!@#$%^&*y in my previous post. Still, it's significant that they went from one pseudo-en!@#$%^&*y to 12 autonomous nations. Whether it's "sizable" or not is perhaps arguable, but it's still a significant border change, as we both agree. The maps you provided don't seem to show Sudan gaining from the other French territories, or at least not enough to make up for its loss to Libya. Worthless or not it's still a significant border change. Okay so we both agree regarding this, which is good. It's still a significant border change. Good, again we agree. So we appear to be in agreement then, in the end.

Have enough spammers here anyway. Agreed.

I'm happy to do a detailed analysis. Ifni and Spanish Morocco have been absorbed into modern Morocco. French West Africa and French Equatorial Africa have split into modern Mauritania, Senegal, Mali, Niger, Chad, the Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Guinea, Burkina Faso, Benin, and Cote D'Ivoire. Sizable chunks of Kamerun have been absorbed into modern Chad, Gabon, the Central African Republic, and the Republic of the Congo. Sizable chunks of Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, Algeria, and even, to an extent, French West Africa have been absorbed into modern Libya. A portion of Libya has been absorbed into modern Egypt. British Somaliland has been absorbed into modern Somalia. Walvis Bay has been absorbed into modern Namibia. German East Africa has split into modern Tanzania, Burundi, and Rwanda. That's a lot of border drawing and reorganization that happened after the time of colonialism.

This seems to be the most logical thing to assume. Generally one !@#$%^&*umes polls aren't rigged unless there is reasonable evidence indicating they actually are rigged. Which other thread?

It seems to me that there is no evidence the powers that be ever tried to rig the nomination for Clinton. There was plenty of time to start pulling strings between Iowa and mid-February (up until around early- to mid-February, IIRC, Clinton still had a lead in pledged delegates); clearly no strings were pulled, as Obama steadily caught up to and then overtook Clinton first in pledged delegates and more recently in superdelegates as well. If strings had been pulled one would have expected Obama to never have overtaken Clinton in pledged delegates; he would've been stopped by rigging after Iowa or, at the latest, after Super Tuesday.

With the figures you've provided above, it does look like many borders have shifted, some significantly. It only looks similar if you look at it very, very crudely. Quit trying to take this off topic. To be frank until your post above I didn't even remember you bashing Clinton in another thread.

Agreed. You can't simply assume Petraeus is lying because it would better fit your argument. Agreed. The only way to make debating possible is to assume public statements are true unless there is clear evidence to show they are propaganda. If you start out !@#$%^&*uming everything is propaganda, then what's the point of debating? Everyone will simply then be able to make up whatever they wish and claim it to be the truth, as since everything is propaganda, there's no proof either way, eh?

How were people trying to make it easy for Clinton? Obama had already emerged as a serious threat to Clinton by all measures since he fought Clinton to a stalemate in early February (on Super Tuesday), way before he got way too far ahead of Clinton.

The borders were set by the African countries themselves after they achieved independence from the former colonial powers. Now granted the borders were very likely influenced by the colonial powers' past activity, but the West hardly actually set the borders. Also note that many of the borders have changed - some quite drastically - because of local warfare after they were originally set at independence. This has nothing to do with me liking you or not; you made a claim and you need to provide evidence, not speculation.