Because you make threads like this, because you insult people and claim to run KMC, because you try and disrupt the forum, because even when you are trying to be discreet you draw attention to yourself.
I wouldn't say I hated you though, I just feel sorry for you, I don't know you so why would I hate you?
I think you are a lonely kid who craves attention and this is your way of doing it, you know these threads will get locked or deleted and you will be banned within 24 hours yet you do it anyway.
You need to know when to man up and just walk away cause really your not achieving anything and your not even bothering people anymore.
I'm not saying that to be nasty, just trying to give you some advice.
nvrbeenwthagirl I have been wondering how about Juntai Galan007 and you making a hierachy in DC like Mr Master have made one for DC??? It would be great if you three could pull that of, and trickerpriest to ofcause also seems to know what he talks about...
America was actually more like the first civil war, as many Americans stayed loyal to Britain as fought against British rule, they were also backed by the French.
I will give you Russia
It also depends if you count a revolution as a rebelion?
Personaly I see them as on a smaller scale, William Wallace was a rebel, didn't end well, Spartacus was a rebel, didn't end well, Bodecia was a rebel, didn't end well, etc etc
WOAH WILLIAM WALLACE OWNED ENGLAND UNTIL HIS HEED AND LIMBS WERE CUT OFF AND NAILED TO LONDON BRIDGE. Seriously us primitive people owned the technologically superior english. Wallace marched right through England on his way to london but for some reason turned back I forget why. We owned them at the battle of stirling castle and at banockburn. Also william wallace wasnt a rebel, it cant really be considered civil war considering there was no such country as Great Britain back in the day (500 years ago). Just two countries going at it./.;..........................................................................................
leading a resistance to English occupation consitutes a Rebel and Edward considered him so.
Wallace wasn't at Banockburn?
The battle of Stirling Bridge he won and he got nowhere near London? then a year later he was defeated at the battle of Falkirk. He then went on the run for 6 years.
He was captured and excuted in 1305, Bannockburn was fought June 24th 1314
Besides I never said they didn't do well and cause some damage, just that it didn't END well.
EDIT: I never said it was a civil war, I was refering to the American revolution when I said that.
On reflection it was a lot like a Civil War, Longshanks was the feudal Lord of Scotland and put his man on the throne.
This made Wallace an outlaw and the Scottish nobles were at loggerheads, a lot of them siding with the English and not wanting to rock the boat the others against the English occupation of Scotland.
I wasn't knocking Wallaces skill or strength as a warrior or his brains as a tactician just saying correctly that he led a resistance to the English and it didn't end well for him.
Sacking York and many other smaller Northern Towns and villages and winning at Stirling Bridge was impressive indeed considering his resources.
But Ultimatley he failed, Bruce parleyed and it wasn't until years later the Scots rose up again.
KMC Community Forums
Jun 19th, 2007 08:54 AM
