I don't see that spam type posts are a big problem here, but if the emperor desires content, then content is what he shall have.  I would think that a history forum would encourage lengthy posts, especially in the topic specific forums.  If you can set the word minimum at 20 in the topic forums and turn it off in general chat, it might be better.  General chat doesn't have to be “chatty” does it?  But I do agree that content is very important to the success of this forum.

General history chat isnt really 'just chat' it's still specific in that the posts have to do with history. I thni the minimum should be lowered a bit, but I see what Phid is getting at.  So Rhino56 was any part of my guess close?

Well kinda, General von Emmich at Liege, August 1914 Belgium.The Fall of Liege - Letter from a German Officer, August 1914General Leman's defence of Liege combined all that is noble, all that is tragic.The commander of one fort (note: not Leman), at the moment when the bombardment was heaviest, went mad, and shot his own men.  He was disarmed and bound.  The cupola of another fort was destroyed by a bomb from a Zeppelin.  Other forts were swept away like sand castles on the seashore before the relentless waves of the oncoming tide.As long as possible General Leman inspected the forts daily to see that everything was in order.  By a piece of falling masonry, dislodged by our guns, both General Leman's legs were crushed.....http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/fallofliege.htmSource: Source Records of the Great War, Vol. II, ed. Charles F. Horne, National Alumni 1923

I knew it was Harding, Ford, Edison, and Firestone, but I thought that if I answered Donnie might feel like he was shown-up and feel bad and so I refrained from answering.Ok ok, so I didn't know who they were.  I didn't even see the post in the first place, but if I had, I still would have had no idea.

Heck I hardly ever get any of these on my forum at njc-njo.com.  I'm one of those History majors who never really paid much attention to the pictures.  Not to sound all nerdy or whatever, but most of the books I read don't have pictures at all in them.  So when people joke about reading only books with pictures, it isn't really all that indicative of anything because for trivia purposes, the pictures really do help out.  I prefer the ideas behind the figures when I read history.  I couldn't care less what Alexander the Great looked like, but I do care about what made him successful.  I probably should balance my historical studies by incorporating the visual as well as the abstract. 

I'm just saying I usually don't pay much attention to historical pictures and representations of famous people, but concentrate on their ideas or accomplishments as recorded in the books I read.  I might recognize a picture of Napoleon or Lincoln, but I probably wouldn't recognize people like Carnegie, Chase, Rockefeller, Edison, Peter the Great, George III, Benedict Arnold etc…..since many of these haven't reached “icon” status even though they are notable.