Podcast 14: Fully compliant with the 19th Amendment

"Anne agrees with Peter" incorrect.

Anne disagrees with Joey without necessarily agreeing with Pete.

Also, from Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guerilla_warfare#American_Revolutionary_War

While the American Revolutionary War is often thought of as a guerrilla war, guerrilla tactics were uncommon, and almost all of the battles involved conventional set-piece battles. Some of the confusion may be because Generals George Washington and Nathanael Greene successfully used a strategy of harassment and progressively grinding down British forces instead of seeking a decisive battle, in a classic example of asymmetric warfare. Nevertheless the theater tactics used by most of the American forces were those of conventional warfare. One of the exceptions was in the south, where the brunt of the war was upon militia forces who fought the enemy British troops and their Loyalist supporters, but used concealment, surprise, and other guerrilla tactics to much advantage. General Francis Marion of South Carolina, who often attacked the British at unexpected places and then faded into the swamps by the time the British were able to organize return fire, was named by them The Swamp Fox. However, even in the south, most of the major engagements were set-piece battles of conventional warfare. However the guerrilla tactics in the south were a key factor in the prevention of British reinforcement to the north, and that was a decisive factor in the outcome of the war. See also Ethan Allen and the Green Mountain Boys, for another American Revolutionary War example.

I couldn't find supporting documentation, but I recall learning in high school that the Colonists learned their asymmetrical tactics from their allies in the French-Indian War.

I thought you and General Custer were going to be doing the Civil War?

i don't have any back-up on this, but it's been my assumption that the british fought in the big orderly way not because it was courageous or honorable or anything, but because it was more EFFECTIVE (or at least they thought it was). kind of a throwback to the greek phalanx.

oh, and btw, the 80s were awesome. more redeeming than any other decade.

While I was recording, I didn't feel like it was too long. I felt like we went at a pretty good clip, considering that we had four episodes to talk about. I thought the length was fine.

However, I have two small boys, and I have to admit that I haven't actually had time to listen to the whole thing yet. (I know, those of you who are in love with the sound of my voice are shocked that I am not likewise enamored). I will listen to it within the next few days, but it is much too long for me to just cover it in one go. Of course, I also realize that many of you commute or work on tasks where you can have a podcast on in the background for the majority of your day. Either way, I don't really see a problem in pausing it and coming back to it.

On the other hand, you could record four shorter shows and post them during the week, one for each episode, and I could most likely listen to the whole thing in a day.

Overall, I think if you're going for a diverse listening audience, shorter is better.

Don't you make an angry face at me, sir!

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/04/09/

I don't think you can give me what I want. My comments above have been somewhat complimentary without any suggestion of solution other than shorter, and you obviously think they are short enough, so good day to you sir. (smile)