NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been noticing a lot of new people posting on General

And by new I mean people with under 200 posts.

No more so than any other time. There's always new people on the forums. Four months ago people said the same thing about you.

I used to have nearly 1000, but I had to go on one hell of a long holiday and thus, my nation died and was recently resurrected.

took 4 months to get up to 1800? dang.

took 4 months to get up to 1800? dang.

Well I post a lot

In 4 days I made 100 posts not too long ago

No more so than any other time. There's always new people on the forums. Four months ago people said the same thing about you.

Well I've never seen such a swarm of new posters. Probably just me :?

No more so than any other time. There's always new people on the forums. Four months ago people said the same thing about you.

Well I've never seen such a swarm of new posters. Probably just me :?

You haven't been around long enough. :wink: Trust me, it's happened before.

No more so than any other time. There's always new people on the forums. Four months ago people said the same thing about you.

Well I've never seen such a swarm of new posters. Probably just me :?

You haven't been around long enough. :wink: Trust me, it's happened before.

well okay

(post count +1 :wink: )

EDIT: Ahh...1812 posts...same year in which we showed the Brits how strong we became in a few decades. Ended the war in a draw. We burned the British Canadian capitol ya know.

Hey, they have as much a right to post as you do!

Hey, they have as much a right to post as you do!

just sayin how I was noticing more posters. Not that I have a problem. Just a curiosity

i've never posted at all. Does posting occur that often? I usually just pay attention to my ever changing nation.

From what I have seen lately we have just about the usual number of true newbies. We have had quite an onslaught of puppet nations being made to just post a few times, trying to aggravate people then they disappear. Fine example of small minds getting their kicks.

EDIT: Ahh...1812 posts...same year in which we showed the Brits how strong we became in a few decades. Ended the war in a draw. We burned the British Canadian capitol ya know.

You know that they burned our capital too, right?

[quote=Colodia]EDIT: Ahh...1812 posts...same year in which we showed the Brits how strong we became in a few decades. Ended the war in a draw. We burned the British Canadian capitol ya know.[/quote

You know that they burned our capital too, right?

ahh...that's so beat up. THEY BURNED OUR CAPITOL TO THE GROUND ONCE AND THREW A BIG CELEBRATION. Whoop-de-do

We...
-burned the British Canadian capitol
-Gave the Brits a run for their money
-Insulted Europe many many times
-Defeated the Japanese
-Defeated the Mexicans
-Expanded East to West and farther
etc. etc.

We gotta give everyone else a break man. And we weren't a superpower yet anyways.

EDIT: Ahh...1812 posts...same year in which we showed the Brits how strong we became in a few decades. Ended the war in a draw. We burned the British Canadian capitol ya know.

You know that they burned our capital too, right?

ahh...that's so beat up.

So is parading the fact that we burned York down as a point of national pride.

EDIT: Ahh...1812 posts...same year in which we showed the Brits how strong we became in a few decades. Ended the war in a draw. We burned the British Canadian capitol ya know.

You know that they burned our capital too, right?

ahh...that's so beat up.

So is parading the fact that we burned York down as a point of national pride.

we burned down York? What's York? Never heard of it

EDIT: Ahh...1812 posts...same year in which we showed the Brits how strong we became in a few decades. Ended the war in a draw. We burned the British Canadian capitol ya know.

You know that they burned our capital too, right?

ahh...that's so beat up.

So is parading the fact that we burned York down as a point of national pride.

we burned down York? What's York? Never heard of it

The capital of Canada. That we burned down.

EDIT: Ahh...1812 posts...same year in which we showed the Brits how strong we became in a few decades. Ended the war in a draw. We burned the British Canadian capitol ya know.

You know that they burned our capital too, right?

ahh...that's so beat up.

So is parading the fact that we burned York down as a point of national pride.

we burned down York? What's York? Never heard of it

The capital of Canada. That we burned down.

ahh.....okay....

although I see it as an equalizer to the burning of Washington D.C. Not a national pride fact.

ahh.....okay....

although I see it as an equalizer to the burning of Washington D.C. Not a national pride fact.

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

ahh.....okay....

although I see it as an equalizer to the burning of Washington D.C. Not a national pride fact.

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

but the Brits act like we never did such a thing. The only reason they burned D.C. was because we burned York here.

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

Hang on: the US burns down an administrative capital of a colony, and then the Brits burn down the US's national capital? Looks like a win for the Brits there.

ahh.....okay....

although I see it as an equalizer to the burning of Washington D.C. Not a national pride fact.

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

but the Brits act like we never did such a thing. The only reason they burned D.C. was because we burned York here.

Probably, but like I said, enough Americans parade around the fact that we burned York down as a point of national pride and forget that the British burned down Washington DC.

ahh.....okay....

although I see it as an equalizer to the burning of Washington D.C. Not a national pride fact.

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

but the Brits act like we never did such a thing. The only reason they burned D.C. was because we burned York here.

Probably, but like I said, enough Americans parade around the fact that we burned York down as a point of national pride and forget that the British burned down Washington DC.

and what I barely said

but i doubt it's really national pride. More like a militaristic victory

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

Hang on: the US burns down an administrative capital of a colony, and then the Brits burn down the US's national capital? Looks like a win for the Brits there.

you gotta remember the geographical impossibilities and the fact that the U.S. wasn't even 50 years old yet

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

Hang on: the US burns down an administrative capital of a colony, and then the Brits burn down the US's national capital? Looks like a win for the Brits there.

The fact that the US survived two wars against England is commendable in and of itself. By all accounts the US should have been crushed on both accounts.

No more so than any other time. There's always new people on the forums. Four months ago people said the same thing about you.

Well I've never seen such a swarm of new posters. Probably just me :?Who says we're all new posters? Sometimes you gotta let the puppets out to play.

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

Hang on: the US burns down an administrative capital of a colony, and then the Brits burn down the US's national capital? Looks like a win for the Brits there.

The fact that the US survived two wars against England is commendable in and of itself. By all accounts the US should have been crushed on both accounts.

Actually, it was a winter in 1777 or 1778 in which the British forces decided to take a break for Christmas instead of fighting, since they thought that they would have an easy victory. It was then that General Washington took advantage and surprised the Brits.

Well we burned down York first, so it's really an equalizer for them, not us.

Hang on: the US burns down an administrative capital of a colony, and then the Brits burn down the US's national capital? Looks like a win for the Brits there.

The fact that the US survived two wars against England is commendable in and of itself. By all accounts the US should have been crushed on both accounts.

Actually, it was a winter in 1777 or 1778 in which the British forces decided to take a break for Christmas instead of fighting, since they thought that they would have an easy victory. It was then that General Washington took advantage and surprised the Brits.

It was 1776. Even with that one victory nonwithstanding, the idea that the American colonies could defeat one of the three major powers of the world was unbelievable. The fact that the US did not lose is amazing.

It was 1776. Even with that one victory nonwithstanding, the idea that the American colonies could defeat one of the three major powers of the world was unbelievable. The fact that the US did not lose is amazing.

Not to throw water on your parade but the logistical difficulties for the British to maintain America as a colonial possession alone made independence innevitable.

Had the initial War of Independence gone badly, colonial rebels would have had to wait a short time until Britain was otherwise occupied with the French revolution to make their move.

It was 1776. Even with that one victory nonwithstanding, the idea that the American colonies could defeat one of the three major powers of the world was unbelievable. The fact that the US did not lose is amazing.

Not to throw water on your parade but the logistical difficulties for the British to maintain America as a colonial possession alone made independence innevitable.

Had the initial War of Independence gone badly, colonial rebels would have had to wait a short time until Britain was otherwise occupied with the French revolution to make their move.

I know the logistical difficulties of maintaining an overseas possession would be damn near impossible, but you still have to give credit that America really had no business defeating the British.

It was 1776. Even with that one victory nonwithstanding, the idea that the American colonies could defeat one of the three major powers of the world was unbelievable. The fact that the US did not lose is amazing.

Not to throw water on your parade but the logistical difficulties for the British to maintain America as a colonial possession alone made independence innevitable.

Had the initial War of Independence gone badly, colonial rebels would have had to wait a short time until Britain was otherwise occupied with the French revolution to make their move.

I know the logistical difficulties of maintaining an overseas possession would be damn near impossible, but you still have to give credit that America really had no business defeating the British.We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

It was 1776. Even with that one victory nonwithstanding, the idea that the American colonies could defeat one of the three major powers of the world was unbelievable. The fact that the US did not lose is amazing.

Not to throw water on your parade but the logistical difficulties for the British to maintain America as a colonial possession alone made independence innevitable.

Had the initial War of Independence gone badly, colonial rebels would have had to wait a short time until Britain was otherwise occupied with the French revolution to make their move.

I know the logistical difficulties of maintaining an overseas possession would be damn near impossible, but you still have to give credit that America really had no business defeating the British.We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Explain to me the War of 1812 then. Not much international interferance (sp) besides Colonial Canada

It was 1776. Even with that one victory nonwithstanding, the idea that the American colonies could defeat one of the three major powers of the world was unbelievable. The fact that the US did not lose is amazing.

Not to throw water on your parade but the logistical difficulties for the British to maintain America as a colonial possession alone made independence innevitable.

Had the initial War of Independence gone badly, colonial rebels would have had to wait a short time until Britain was otherwise occupied with the French revolution to make their move.

I know the logistical difficulties of maintaining an overseas possession would be damn near impossible, but you still have to give credit that America really had no business defeating the British.We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

That's especially true of the War of 1812. America would eventually have fallen against Britian if they didn't have that little nuisance in Europe known as Napolean.

It was 1776. Even with that one victory nonwithstanding, the idea that the American colonies could defeat one of the three major powers of the world was unbelievable. The fact that the US did not lose is amazing.

Not to throw water on your parade but the logistical difficulties for the British to maintain America as a colonial possession alone made independence innevitable.

Had the initial War of Independence gone badly, colonial rebels would have had to wait a short time until Britain was otherwise occupied with the French revolution to make their move.

I know the logistical difficulties of maintaining an overseas possession would be damn near impossible, but you still have to give credit that America really had no business defeating the British.

True, the military victory was unexpected but America had the advantage of a very small learning curve when it came to employing military tactics and ordinance.

Victor Hanson explains the intrinsic military advantage that "western" armies have in Culture and Carnage. Once motivated, there was really nothing that was going to stop the revolution (despite what is said in the media).

i've never posted at all. Does posting occur that often? I usually just pay attention to my ever changing nation.Careful, it is like a drug thing the first few are freebies. Then when you become addicted it starts costing you. Sleep becomes a thing of the past. Family? Ha we don't need no stinking families. Get out while there is still time. :lol:

We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Explain to me the War of 1812 then. Not much international interferance (sp) besides Colonial CanadaOne word: Napoleon.

We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Umm, that is not completely true. Bolivars rebellion had no outside assistance and was very successful.

We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Explain to me the War of 1812 then. Not much international interferance (sp) besides Colonial CanadaOne word: Napoleon.

Oh...right... :oops:

damn

still...the Brits sent thousands and thousands of redcoats.

We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Explain to me the War of 1812 then. Not much international interferance (sp) besides Colonial CanadaOne word: Napoleon.

Oh...right... :oops:

damn

still...the Brits sent thousands and thousands of redcoats.

...and started bringing them back once Napolean started making noise in Europe.

We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Umm, that is not completely true. Bolivars rebellion has no outside assistance and was very successful.And as always happens when I use the word "never," some smartass has to prove me wrong. :lol:

Sorry about that. It's more often the case than not, however. If a regime wants to hold onto a possession badly enough and is willing to be utterly ruthless, then they'll generally be able to do so unless there's some outside interference or their will fades.

We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Explain to me the War of 1812 then. Not much international interferance (sp) besides Colonial CanadaOne word: Napoleon.

Oh...right... :oops:

damn

still...the Brits sent thousands and thousands of redcoats.

...and started bringing them back once Napolean started making noise in Europe.

...uhh...

ENOUGH WITH THE HIJACKING! I was just stating a simple fact and now I'm at 1832 posts! Not 1812 anylonger

We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Umm, that is not completely true. Bolivars rebellion has no outside assistance and was very successful.And as always happens when I use the word "never," some smartass has to prove me wrong. :lol:

Sorry about that. It's more often the case than not, however. If a regime wants to hold onto a possession badly enough and is willing to be utterly ruthless, then they'll generally be able to do so unless there's some outside interference or their will fades.

As a rule, however, you are right. Most rebellions do not become full on revolutions unless the revolutionaries are aided in some way. There are exceptions, obviously.

And the British still look at the US as a newbie, so back to the topic, what do you say?

And the British still look at the US as a newbie, so back to the topic, what do you say?

I say I couldn't go back to the original meaning of the topic whether I wanted to or not

And the British still look at the US as a newbie, so back to the topic, what do you say?

The original topic was pointless. "Is there a surge of newbies?" No, no more than when any of us were newbies. Question answered. That question was asked a million times before, about all of us. Do you know how many "Too many n00bs" or "What should we do about the n00bs?" threads there have been?

We never would have won if Britain hadn't had its hands full in Europe. They couldn't devote all their time to us while they were dealing with threats from France at the same time. Truth is, no rebellion has ever been successful without outside interference from another power.

Umm, that is not completely true. Bolivars rebellion has no outside assistance and was very successful.And as always happens when I use the word "never," some smartass has to prove me wrong. :lol:

Sorry about that. It's more often the case than not, however. If a regime wants to hold onto a possession badly enough and is willing to be utterly ruthless, then they'll generally be able to do so unless there's some outside interference or their will fades.

As a rule, however, you are right. Most rebellions do not become full on revolutions unless the revolutionaries are aided in some way. There are exceptions, obviously.

Well, there is Haiti as well.

Sorry to be a smartass again but your theory does not cover a fair amount of post-colonial revolutions.

Algeria recieved almost no outside support but was able to bleed France into accepting its independence. In fact, most African nations that gained their independence from European powers in the 50's did so without support. Russia only became involved in the independence game in the Third World during the 60's.